Water Supply Element 1994

8/2/2019 Water Supply Element 1994

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/water-supply-element-1994 1/139



Morris County Master Plan;.

Water SupplyElement

ADOPTED: April 7,. 1994·



1994

Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders

Edward A. Tamm, Director

Frank J. Druetzler

Patrie J. Hyland

Cecilia G. Laureys

Carol J. Murphy

James O'Brien

Peter J. O'Hagan, Jr.

Morris County Planning Board

William J. Mathews, Chairman

Edward H. Bennett

Lawrence J. Brown

Cecilia Laureys

Barry Marell, Esq.

James C. Nelson

Donald F. Roos

Raymond J. Ryan

Edward A. Tamm

Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority

Bernhard D. Guenther, Chairman

James Barry

Michael Dedio

Edward H. Eppel

Frank J. Markewicz

Herman Nadel

Dr. Arthur Nusbaum

David Scapicchio

Carol Rufener

Alex A. Slavin, Executive Director

Thomas P. Branch, ChiefEngineer

Morris County Department of Planning and Development

The following staff members were involved in the development of this element

Walter P. K.rich, Jr.

Director ofPlanning and Development

Raymond Zabihach

Planning Director

James Woodruff

Assistant Planning Director

Gene Cass, Senior Cartographer

Ray Chang, Senior Planner

Tom Kenny, Principal Planning Aide

Christine Marion, Supervising Planner

Carol Simmons, Senior Drafting Technician

Sabine von Aulock, Environmental Health Specialist

Layout and Graphics: Gene Cass and Nicole Seitz



MORRIS COUNTY PLANNING BOARD

Resolution No. 94-4

RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 1994 WATER SUPPLY ELEMENT

WHEREAS, the Morris County Planning Board is charged with the responsibility of

adopting a master plan for the physical development of the County; and

WHEREAS, a draft "Water Supply Element Update" of the Morris County Master Plan was

approved by the Planning Board for printing and distribution for review by municipalities on

September 9, 1993; and

WHEREAS, the Morris County Planning Board held a public hearing on December 2, 1993

and solicited written statements on the above draft; and

WHEREAS, the Morris County Planning Board reviewed the comments and amended the

draft element to incorporate corrections and appropriate changes.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Morris County Planniilg Board hereby

formally adopts the 1994 Water Supply Element as part of the Morris County Master Plan.

VOTE

Edward Bennett

Lawrence Brown

Cecelia Laureys

Barry Marell

William Mathews

James Nelson

James O'Brien

Raymond Ryan

Karen Wilson

Aye

t./v

/

,/

/

i /

v/

Abs.

I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and complete

copy of a resolution adopted by the Morris County Planning

Board a eeting held4n/94.



Contents2.19 Mendham Borough 2-11

SectionPage

2.20 Mendham Township 2-122.21 Mine Hill Township 2-12

TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.22 Montville Township 2-13

Contents 2.23 Morris Township 2-13

Figures 11 2.24 Morris Plains Borough 2-14

Tables 11 2.25 Morristown Town 2-14

2.26 Mountain Lakes Borough 2-14

2.27 Mount Arlington Borough 2-15INTRODUCTION 2.28 Mount Olive Township 2-15Morris County's Role In Water Supply 2.29 Netcong Borough 2-16

Historical Background l l l 2.30 Parsippany-Troy HillsCurrent Status VI Township 2-16

Water Supply Element Update vii 2.31 Pequannock Township 2-172.32 Randolph Township 2-17

CHAPTER ONE 2.33 Riverdale Borough 2-18

Water Resources of Morris County 2.34 Rockaway Borough 2-18

1.1 Geology and Hydrogeology 1-1 2.35 Rockaway Township 2-19

1.2 Ground Water Availability/ 2.36 Roxbury Township 2-20

Base Flow Analysis 1-13 2.37 Victory Gardens Borough 2-20

1.3 Water Supply Availability 1-16 2.38 Washington Township 2-20

1.4 Surface Water 1-20 2.39 Wharton Borough 2-21

CHAPTER TWO CHAPTER THREE

Existing Water Supply Facilities Existing and Future Water Demand and

2.1 Boonton Town 2-2 Use Trends

2.2 Boonton Township 2-2 3.1 Existing Water Demand 3-1

2.3 Butler Borough 2-3 3.2 Increase in Water Demand

2.4 Chatham Borough 2-3 Between 1990 and 2010 3-5

2.5 Chatham Township 2-3 3.3 Conclusion 3-6

2.6 Chester Borough 2-4

2.7 Chester Township 2-5 CHAPTER FOUR

2.8 Denville Township 2-6 Regulatory Requirements Affecting2.9 Dover Town 2-6 Provision of Water Supply2.10 East Hanover Township 2-7 4.1 Federal Water Supply2.11 Florham Park Borough 2-7 Regulations 4-2

2.12 Hanover Township 2-8 4.2 NJ Regulations Regarding2.13 Harding Township 2-8 Operation of Water Utilities 4-32.14 Jefferson Township 2-9 4.3 NJ Regulation of Water2.15 Kinnelon Borough 2-10 Allocations and Withdrawals 4-72.16 Lincoln Park Borough 2-10 4.4 NJ Regulations for Protection2.17 Long Hill Township 2-11 of Ground Water Supplies 4-82.18 Madison Borough 2-11

Morris County Water Supply Element



4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

4.10

4.11

4.12

4.13

Watershed Protection

Regulations Affecting

Construction and Expansion

ofWater Works

Assurance ofWater SystemReliability

Water Emergency, Shortage,

and Drought-Related

Regulations

State Water Supply

Development Agencies

State Water Supply Planning

Actions

Water Conservation

System Financing

Protection ofWater Quality

CHAPTER FIVE

4-10

4-11

4-13

4-14

4-16

4-16

4-17

4-18

4-18

Conclusions and Recommendations

Issues 5-1

5.1 Quantity of Existing and

Future Sources ofWater

s ~ ~ Y 5.2 Distribution of Water

Resources 5-4

5.3 Ground Water Management 5-5

5.4 Water Quality 5-6

5.5 Water Supply Regulation 5-9

5.6 Distribution of Supply 5-10

5.7 Potential County Water

Supply Actions 5-12

5.8 Recommended County Water

Supply Roles and Approaches 5-14

APPENDIX ANJGS Base Flow Analysis

APPENDIXBPurveyor Descriptions

APPENDIXCBedrock Geology Map

APPENDIXDSources Consulted

Morris County Water Supply Element j j

FiguresFollowing

Eigure

1-1Surficial Geology1-2 Potential Aquifers and

Recharge Areas

1-3 Surface Water Features and

Drainage Basins

1-4 Stream Base Flow

2-1 Existing Water Supply

Facilities and Served Areas

3-1 Total Increased Demand for

Water by Public and Self-

Supplied Users Indicated by

Projected Population Growth

5-1 Hazardous Waste Sites

Tables

Table

1-1

3-1

3-2

3-3

Stream Base Flow

Existing Water Demand

by Purveyor

Industrial/Agricultural and

Small Public Community

Water DemandsIncreased Water Demand

1990 to 2010

3-4 Future (2010) Water Demand

Page

1-10

1-10

1-16

1-16

2-2

3-8

5-6

Pa ge

1-14

3-2

3-4

3-7

by Purveyor 3-8

4-1 New Jersey Drinking Water

Standards-Primary Maximum

Contaminant Levels 4-4

4-2 New Jersey Drinking Water

Standards-Secondary

Maximum Contaminant Levels 4-6



INTRODUCTION

Morris County's Role In Water Supply

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Morris County first began addressing water

supply issues in 1956 when the Morris County

Planning Board (MCPB) prepared a rep<:J.rt titled

Future Water Supply Requirements for Morris

County. At that time, the county was concerned

about the availability of water supply because

Jersey City and Newark had sole control of the

major surface water supplies of the Rockaway

and Pequannock Rivers in Morris County. The

report emphasized "the absolute necessity for acontinued factual and responsible approach by

the State of New Jersey to Morris County's

iii

development and the resulting demands for an

adequate in-county water supply for the future." 1

Because the surface water supplies in Morris

County were controlled by out-of-county water

systems, the 1956 study evaluated the availabili

ty of groundwater supplies to meet existing and

future demands. The report concluded that

surface water supplies would be required

because groundwater sources were inadequate to

meet future demands.

1Letter dated April 17, 1956 from John E. Deasy,

Chairman, MCPB, to the Morris County Board of

Chosen Freeholders.




Within the 1956 report, guiding principles

for water supply planning were formulated .

These principles included an emphasis on a

regional and coordinated approach to water

supply planning; a cost/benefit analysis ofwater

supply projects; the need to balance watersupply facility planning with other concerns

such as the environment, flooding, and irriga

tion; and the need to integrate water supply

planning with decision-making by other agen

cies. The report also mapped future service

areas and showed areas of the county which

were projected to have a surplus or deficit of

water. Because of its detailed approach in

determining the future water supply require

ments of the county, copies of the 1956 report

were requested by planning agencies throughout

the country.

The Planning Board's 1956 report was

followed by a study prepared in September 1958

by Elson T. Killam Associates for the Board of

Chosen Freeholders. The Report upon the Long

Range Water Requirements for Morris County

contained similar analyses as the 1956 report

including population projections and the

determination of the existing and future demand

for water. The population projections, and

consequently the demand, were considerably

lower in the 1958 report.The 1958 study identified potential actions to

secure additional water supply for Morris

County including participation in Jersey City's

Longwood Reservoir project in Jefferson

Township, creation of a water authority, estab

lishment of a program for comprehensive

exploration of groundwater resources, consid

eration of development of small surface water

supplies, and acquisition of essential lands and

right-of-ways. It was also recommended that

the county participate in large scale water

supply developments which were being pro

posed by the state and federal governments

including Round Valley Reservoir and Tocks

Island.

Morris County Water Supply Element iv

Also in September 1958, the Board of

Chosen Freeholders adopted a resolution creat

ing the Morris County Municipal Utilities

Authority (MCMUA) for the primary purpose of

developing and distributing an adequate supply

of water for the public and private use of thecounty's inhabitants. It was understood, how

ever, that the MCMUA's role would be limited

to developing regional water supplies to pro

vide bulk supply to local water companies and

municipal water departments.

-- -n September 1958. th e Board of

Chosen Freeholders adopted a

resolution creating th e Morris County

Municipal Utilit ies Authority (MCMUA).-One of the main objectives ofthe MCMUA

was to protect the interests of the county from

the continued development and exportation of

in-county water supplies. The first undertaking

of MCMUA with respect to this role was to

challenge Jersey City's development of the

Longwood Reservoir in Jefferson Township.

The MCMUA obtained the right to develop and

utilize the excess water supply from the

Rockaway River basin as long as the diversion

did not encroach upon Jersey City's Boonton,

Longwood and Splitrock reservoirs. MCMUA

also opposed the Passaic Valley Water Com

mission on the development of the Pointview

Reservoir on the Pompton River. MCMUA was

able to eventually obtain diversion rights of2.0

MGD from this source, contingent upon county

development and use of the supply within seven

years. The MCMUA eventually lost the diversion rights because the supply was never devel

oped.

A number of studies were undertaken by the

MCMUA to develop sources of water supply

within the county and to create an integrated



distribution system. The Authority's intent with

respect to water supply was to protect

groundwater supplies through recharge of

wellfields and adequate storage of excess water

supplies during heavy rainfall periods.

Although several studies had been completedor were underway at that time, a water supply

master plan had not yet been developed for

Morris County. In the late 1960s and early

1970s, such a plan was prepared by the Morris

County Planning Board. This was preceded by

a two phase report which incorporated the previ

ous studies and findings completed for the

MCMUA. The MCMUA's reports formed the

basis for the MCPB plan since the Authority

would be one of the major implementing

agencies.

The main objective of the 1971 Water

Supply Master Plan was to develop an intercon

nected water supply system that could provide

more than one source ofwater to a given area.

In keeping with the mission of he MCMUA, the

municipalities would develop and utilize their

own sources which could be supplemented by

MCMUA's proposed surface water supplies.

However, the plan concluded that once all

groundwater and surface water supplies were

fully developed, the county would have to

depend on major surface water supplies locatedoutside of the county to meet the demands of

anticipated growth.

The 1971 Plan identified several proposed

county projects which had been endorsed by the

state. At that time, the MCMUA was proposing

to develop four reservoirs (Toume Reservoir in

Boonton, Denville and Mountain Lakes;

Washington Valley Reservoir in Morris

Township; Pulaski Reservoir in Mt. Olive; and

Weldon Brook Reservoir in Jefferson Township)

and one groundwater source (Alamatong

Wellfield and Recharge Basin) to beinterconnected by major transmission lines. The

MCMUA had acquired the lands for each of the

proposed projects. The plan also listed proposed

state and federal projects such as the Tocks

v

Island Reservoir on the Delaware River, which

could be potential sources of water supply for

Morris County.

Only one of the county projects proposed in

the 1971 plan, the Alamatong Wellfield, was

developed. The MCMUA was using this sourceto supply water to Mine Hill, Randolph and the

Southeast Morris County Municipal Utilities

Authority (formerly the Morristown Water

Company). The Toume Reservoir project was

dropped and developed into a park by the Morris

County Park Commission. Pulaski, Washington

Valley, and Weldon Brook reservoirs were not

developed.

The 1980/1981 drought provided the impetus

for the development of the 1982 Water Supply

Master Plan Element. The element updated the

analysis of water supply sources, facilities,

consumption patterns, and future needs for

Morris County. Unlike earlier studies, the 1982

update concluded that most purveyors and

communities in Morris County had sufficient

groundwater sources for the immediate future

provided that the groundwater sources were

properly managed.

- - -he 198Z update concluded

that most purveyors and communities

in Morris County had sufficient

groundwater sources for th e

immediate future.

-- -The plan predicted that the role of the

MCMUA to develop additional supplies would

become greater as the needs of the county

increased. The 1982 element recommended actions the MCMUA could take to meet the long

term water supply needs of Morris County.

These recommendations included extending the

existing regional system serving Mine Hill,




Randolph and the Southeast Morris County

Municipal Utilities Authority to nearby munici

palities; developing a regional system to servethe northwestern portion of the county including

Rockaway Township and the municipalities

along the Musconetcong River.The report also evaluated the feasibility of

the previously proposed Pulaski, WashingtonValley, and Weldon Brook reservoir projects.

Specific recommendations included the construction of the Washington Valley Reservoir,the Sussex Turnpike Transmission Main, an

interconnection with Mendham Borough; and

the extension of he Sussex Turnpike Transmission Main to Denville. Pulaski and WeldonBrook reservoirs were not recommended for

implementation.

CURRENT STATUS

Since the completion of the 1982 Water

Supply Element, two projects which wererecommended for the MCMUA system havebeen implemented. An interconnection with

Mendham Borough has been constructed, and an

interconnection with Denville was completed

recently.

The Washington Valley Reservoir project

remained under consideration until 1989 whena Value Engineering Study identified severeenvironmental constraints and prohibitive cost

estimates. In June 1990, the MCMUAcompleted an evaluation of alternative watersupply sources to the Washington Valley

Reservoir project. Interconnections with otherpurveyors and the development of surface

supplies within Morris County were consideredpreferable to total reliance on groundwater

development.

In addition to the projects recommended inthe 1982 Water Supply Element, several proj

ects have been proposed and implemented.These include the development of an additionalsource of supply in the Flanders Valley area;and construction of an interconnection with

Morris County Water Supply Element vi

Roxbury and an additional interconnection with

the Southeast Morris County Municipal UtilitiesAuthority.

In October 1992, the MCMUA signed a

purchase agreement with Jersey City to divert

7.5 million gallons per day (MGD) from theBoonton Reservoir for a period up to 40 years,

pending state approval. This cooperative effortis somewhat ironic because 35 years earlier both

parties were involved in a lengthy court battleover diversions from the Rockaway River. TheMCMUA and Jersey City now acknowledge thatin the long-term it is in their mutual interest tojointly increase the maximum safe yield of theRockaway River system. The MCMUA's agree

ment with Jersey City represents a reliablefuture surface water supply for Morris County.

-- -he MCMUA s agreement

with Jersey City represents a reliable

future surface water supply

fo r Morris County.

- -Through the Morris County Open Space andFarmland Preservation Trust Fund which was

established by the Board of Chosen Freeholdersin December 1992, monies are available to theMCMUA for land acquisition. The trust fund is

funded by a tax not to exceed $.02 per $100 of

total county equalized real property valuation.According to the proposed rules and regulationsfor administering the fund, the MCMUA, along

with the Park Commission, would be eligible toreceive at least 25% of the total moniesavailable each year. These monies could be

used to purchase "land or water areas in alargely natural or undeveloped state to provide:

... the protection of critical water supplies suchas areas surrounding municipal/county wells,aquifer recharge protection areas or watershedareas."



The rules and regulations for the trust fund

have not been approved by the Board of Chosen

Freeholders since a change in the state enabling

legislation is being sought. Therefore, to date,

no action has been taken by the MCMUA in

determining which lands, if any, should bepurchased.

WATER SUPPLY ELEMENT UPDATE

Since the last revision of the Morris County

Water Supply Element in 1982, new information

has been generated on the availability and use of

water supply within the county. The New Jersey

Department of Environmental Protection and

Energy has been collecting extensive data on

water usage and quality. Unfortunately, the

various state divisions and bureaus each have

their own means of compiling and analyzing

data which, in most cases, was not compatible

with Morris County's information needs. In

addition, the New Jersey Geological Survey and

the United States Geological Survey continue

vii

their work on important research that will

determine the characteristics of the three

principal buried valley aquifer systems in the

county. Reports on the conclusions of their

research on aquifer yield are not yet available.

Based on the information which was avail-able, the Morris County Planning Board and the


have identified the significant issues facing the

county concerning water supply. The major

issues are:

0 water resources allocation

0 surface water exportation

0 water mining and aquifer depletion

0 aquifer recharge protection

0 water quality protection.

Because these issues are complex, this plan

does not offer an engineered solution to water

supply needs, but identifies approaches by

which those involved in supplying water in

Morris County can work toward common goals.

. ' : ~ : ,




CHAPTER ONE

Water Resources of Morris County

1.1 GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY

About 95 percent ofMorris County's public

water supply, and all residential self-supplied

water, is produced from wells. The importance

of ground water in Morris County has been

recognized by the United States Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA) in the granting of

Sole Source Aquifer status (see Chapter Four) to

a number of important aquifers extending

throughout Morris County. This status,

however, is not sufficient to protect the aquifersfrom all potential dangers, because it applies

only to federally funded projects .

Ground water is typically a dependable

source because aquifers (the source of ground

water) are less affected by short-term drought

1-1

than surface water bodies. However, ground

water supplies can and have been compromised

by inadequately planned development in aquifer

recharge areas, overpumpage, and uncontrolled

waste disposal. The yield of an aquifer can be

reduced by construction of homes and

businesses over the recharge zone. Aquifer

yield can also be reduced by ground water

"mining", or pumping in excess of the capacity

for recharge.

Aquifers are vulnerable to contamination

from landfills and hazardous waste dumps,leaking underground storage tanks, industrial

lagoons, and accidental overland discharges.

These are typically relatively localized sources

of contamination, but can lead to loss of supply

wells.




An understanding of how aquifer systems

function is necessary to assure continued future

availability through proper management. There

is a widely held misconception that ground

water is produced from underground lakes andrivers. Actually, ground water is contained in

and transmitted through either small fractures in

rock, or between the grains of sand and gravel in

unconsolidated underground formations .

Ground water in Morris County is produced

from both consolidated (rock) and un

consolidated (sand) formations.

In order to protect an aquifer, it is necessary

to know where it is, how much water it can

reliably produce, and from where it receives its

recharge. Because aquifers frequently are

identified by the name of the geologic formationin which they exist, it would seem logical that a

geologic map of the county would show the

locations of aquifers. However, geology

indicates the types of subsurface formations, it

does not indicate the actual ability of those

formations to provide water.- -In order to protect an aquifer. i t is

necessaryto

know whereit

is.

---how much water it can reliably produce.

and from where

i t receives it s recharge. -- ---The definition of an aquifer generally

accepted by hydrogeologists is a subsurface unit

which is capable of yielding water of acceptable

quality to wells in sufficiently large quantity to

be economically useful. Clearly, by this definition, a rock formation capable of yielding 5

gallons per minute could be considered an

aquifer for individual residential wells, but not

for municipal water supplies. Virtually every

geologic formation in Morris County could be

classified as some form of aquifer, except where

Morris County Water Supply Element 1-2

the water in a formation contains natural or

man-induced contaminants in concentrations

that would prevent use of the water for potable

water supply. However, in this report, the term

aquifer will be used to describe formationscapable of producing significant potable water

supplies.

Geologic mapping of Morris County and the

rest of New Jersey has been conducted and

revised many times as new information is

obtained or as theories of the geologic history of

the area evolve. The primary objective ofmost

geologic mapping has been academic (to

advance the science of geology), or economic

(to find and develop mineral resources). Only

recently has emphasis been directed to the

mapping of aquifers.

The process of geologic mapping is inter

pretive. The geologist studies outcrops and

surface materials in the field and whatever

subsurface data may be available in the form of

well or boring logs or geophysical data. From

the data, the geologist selects certain

characteristics upon which to define a

formation, and map those characteristics.

In the past, water-bearing properties have not

been included in the definition of geologic

formations (with the exception of the KittatinnyLimestone Group which has recently been

subdivided by Markewicz.). Aquifer delineation

is a complex science since an aquifer may be

comprised of a portion of, an entire, or several

geologic formations.

There are two major classifications of

aquifers: consolidated and unconsolidated.

Consolidated aquifers are formed by the bedrock

formation. Several types of bedrock are found

in Morris County, as will be discussed in greater

detailin

the next section. The amountof

groundwater available from a bedrock aquifer depends

on the type of rock, and the extent to which the

rock has been fractured or dissolved. The three

basic rock classifications are represented in the

bedrock of the county; igneous, metamorphic,

and sedimentary. Although some ground water

can be produced virtually anywhere, the extent



of fracturing in consolidated aquifers determines

the quantity of water available from any given

location.

Unconsolidated aquifers are generally form

ed by sedimentary materials, which have notbeen compressed or cemented into solid rock.

The amount of water contained in un-

consolidated formations is determined by the

porosity, or open space between grains. The

ability of a formation to transmit water is known

as permeability. Sands and gravels have a high

permeability and therefore make excellent

aquifers. Just as a bedrock formation may have

areas with more or less fracturing, some sand or

gravel formations are influenced by the presence

of silt or clay, or even a chemically precipitated

cement such as calcium carbonate or iron oxide,between the grains. If there is enough of the

matrix to reduce permeability significantly, the

formation may not be able to transmit enough

water to function as an aquifer. Fine grained

materials, such as silt and clay, actually contain

more open space than sand or gravel. However,

silts and clays do not fit the definition of an

aquifer, because the water contained is not

easily yielded by these materials.

In Morris County, unconsolidated formations

were formed directly or indirectly by glaciers

during the Pleistocene, or Ice Age . Not all of

the unconsolidated formations are aquifers,

either because they are composed of fine-grain

ed, impermeable material, or because they are of

insufficient depth to hold significant quantities

of water. The most valuable of the

unconsolidated aquifers in the county are the

"buried valleys". These features are valleys

eroded into the bedrock surface by rivers, which

were subsequently filled with unconsolidated

sediment. Some of the bedrock valleys, which

were cut by ancient rivers, are 400 feet deep ,although they are not filled with sediments.

The existence ofthick deposits of permeable

sediments from the Pleistocene in parts of the

county have been known and used for water

supply since the early 1900s. By the 1960s, they

1-3

were supplying more than 75 percent of the

ground water pumped (Gill and Vecchioli,

1965).

During the past decade, since the last update

of

the Morris County Master Plan Water SupplyElement, several vigorous research programs

have been conducted in the county and other

parts of northern New Jersey. These programs

have been a cooperative effort between the

United States Geological Survey (USGS) and

the New Jersey Geologic Survey (NJGS). Much

of this research has been directed toward

delineation and characterization of the buried

valley system. In addition, the Morris County

Municipal Utilities Authority (MCMUA) has

been successful in defining several carbonate

aquifers through their ground water explorationprogram.

- -n 1990. approximately LfO million gallons

pe r day. or about 90 percent of

th e total ground water pumped by public

systems in th e county. was pumped

from th e buried valley aquifers.

- -There is good reason to study these aquifers.

In 1990, approximately 40 million gallons per

day, or about 90 percent of the total ground

water pumped by public systems in the county,

was pumped from the buried valley aquifers.

The goal of the NJGSIUSGS programs is the

development of numerical models, in which the

behavior of he aquifer systems can be simulated

on computers. Once developed, these models

can be used to predict the effects on the aquifersystems resulting from changes in recharge or

ground water pumping, as well as show the

effects of pollution.




However, the recent buried valley research is

not complete. A few studies have been

published, several are available in draft form,

and some research has not been released. This

report incorporates all that is available now, andsummarizes the highlights of the programs.

The other major area of investigation in

volves bedrock research through field mapping,

which is primarily directed toward increased

fundamental understanding of the regional

geology. Most geologic mapping is not

specifically directed toward water supply

development (with the exception of MCMUA

investigation and research on carbonate rock in

the county). A brief discussion of the bedrock

research is included, because much of the old

familiar nomenclature has been revised.

1.1.1 Geologic Framework

Because geologic investigations or mapping

projects are conducted for different purposes,

different classification schemes have been used

to describe the rock formations. The most

common classification is based on a similarity

of characteristics by which mappable units, or

formations, can be identified. A geologic

formation may be composed of a single litholo

gy (rock type). The definition of a formation, or

the sub-dividing members, may be based on

other recognizable characteristics, or

interpretations.

The geologic time scale was developed based

on events in the geologic history of the earth.

The major events, or eras, and their subdivisions

(periods, epochs and stages), are based on the

significant events in evolution rather than on

duration in years. The major fossil record began

in the Cambrian Period of the Paleozoic Era,

about 600 million years ago, even thoughprimitive life forms existed much earlier. All

that occurred before the Cambrian is considered

the Precambrian Era. Much of the evidence of

geologic events from the first 4 billion years of

the earth's existence has been lost. The level of

detail in the geologic time scale reflects this fact


with a shortening of the time span divisions as

the date line approaches the present.

The Paleozoic (Early Life) Era, is subdivided

into 7 periods, which are, in order of decreasing

age, Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian,Mississippian, Pennsylvanian, and Permian.

The last three periods are not represented in the

geologic column of Morris County, either

because there was no deposition during that

time, or the rock record was lost by subsequent

erosion. Radical changes in the earth's features

and climate occurred at this time, which resulted

in the extinction of many species at the end of

the Paleozoic Era, about 230 million years ago.

Invertebrates, which had been dominant in the

Paleozoic, were replaced by reptiles during the

Mesozoic Era, or middle life period. TheMesozoic Era is divided into 3 Periods; Triassic,

Jurassic and Cretaceous. Morris County

contains rocks formed during the Triassic and

Jurassic.

The current era, the Cenozoic, began ap

proximately 70 million years ago, with the rise

of mammals as the dominant life form. There

are no rocks in Morris County from the Tertiary,

which was the first of the two periods of the

Cenozoic Era. The Quaternary Period began

about 2 million years ago. Glaciation, whichplayed an important role in the formation of

aquifers in Morris County, occurred in several

pulses during the Pleistocene Epoch. The last

glacial advance over North America (the

Wisconsin), ended approximately 10,000 years

ago. Since that time, the major ice sheets have

retreated to the limits of the north and south

polar ice caps of the Recent, or Holocene Epoch.

Physiography

The physiography, or landform of any area isdetermined by the framework of the geologic

formations, and the geologic processes which

have acted upon them over the billions ofyears

of geologic history. Areas with similar land

forms, which resulted from similar geologic

history, have been classified in physiographic



provinces. Morris County lies within two of

these; the New Jersey Highlands, and the Pied

mont. The Highlands, in the western two thirds

of the county, contains broad ridges separated

by narrow valleys. The crests of the ridges are

about 1,000 feet above sea level, and about 500

feet above the valley floors. The Piedmont is

generally characterized by gently rolling hills.

Both of the provinces are subdivisions of the

Appalachian Highlands.

The ridges and valleys of the Highlands

province derive their form, which is oriented in

a general northeast to southwest trend, from the

ancient geologic history of the area. The oldest

rocks in the county were originally formed

during the Precambrian, more than 600 million

years ago. Sedimentary and igneous rocks werereformed, or metamorphosed to hard crystalline

rocks during long periods of deep burial within

the earth's crust. For hundreds of millions of

years, during much of the Paleozoic Era, what is

now the Highlands ofNew Jersey lay beneath an

ocean. More sedimentary rocks were deposited

over the older Precambrian sediments. Toward

the end of the Paleozoic, as the forces of plate

tectonics caused North America to collide with

Africa, the earth's crust was crumpled by a

series of complex folds and faults into the

Appalachian mountains. The present landformof the Highlands Province is the remnant of

these formerly majestic mountains. The ridges

exist where the harder rocks have resisted ero

sion. The valleys contain softer sedimentary

rocks, emplaced within the Precambrian se

quence by faulting, and subsequently eroded

into valleys.

In Morris County, the bedrock in the Pied

mont province is relatively soft red shales and

sandstones, deposited mostly as continental and

lacustrine sediments, during the late Triassic andearly Jurassic. The sediments, derived from the

Precambrian and Paleozoic rocks to the west,

filled a deep rift valley, created by down fault

ing of a large block of the crust as the result of

the separation of North America from Africa.

1-5

Eventually this crustal spreading resulted in

formation of the Atlantic Ocean. Toward the

late stages ofdevelopment of these rocks, major

volcanic action occurred. Thick sheets of lava

covered hundreds of square miles of northern

New Jersey. The entire sequence, which con

tains thousands of feet of sedimentary rock

beneath and between the flood lavas, was tilted

to the northwest. The lava, which forms the

rock known as basalt, or trap rock, is harder than

the shales and siltstones, and remains today as

the ridges ofthe Watchung Mountains.

Landform and drainage patterns of Morris

County today were shaped to a great extent by

glaciation and related processes during the

Pleistocene. Muchof

northern New Jersey wascovered by thick glaciers several times during

the Quaternary. Identifiable remains of early

glaciation are present in a few parts of southern

Morris County, although much of the evidence

was destroyed during the final stage of glacia

tion, known as the Wisconsin. The most promi

nent of the glacial features, including the termi

nal moraine and the lake deposits of former

glacial Lake Passaic, were formed during the

Wisconsin. Of greater importance to Morris

County ground water supplies were the deep

valleys cut into bedrock by the ancestral Passaic,Rockaway and Lamington Rivers. These val

leys now form today's buried valley aquifer

system.




Bedrock Formations

Bedrock geology of Morris County, espe

cially in the Highlands province, is highly

complex. The recently revised bedrock mapfrom NJGS and USGS is included in Appendix

C of this report. Many different formation and

member names have been applied to some of the

rock units over the years . The most common of

these are discussed below.

Precambrian. Approximately 60 percent of

the area of Morris County is underlain by crys

talline rocks. The Precambrian rocks are over

lain by Paleozoic formations in three belts,

which trend in a northeast-southwest direction.

For the most part, the crystalline rocks are of

sedimentary origin. They were severely altered

by intense heat and pressure during periods of

deep burial in the earth's crust.

At one time, the Precambrian rocks were

mapped as four formations, based on general

ized rock type. The Byram Gneiss was distin

guished by a high concentration of potassium

(orthoclase) feldspar, which imparted a brown

ish-gray color to the rock. Areas rich in sodium

and calcium (plagioclase) feldspars, which are

nearly white, were identified as the Losee

Gneiss . Dark colored rocks, rich in hornblende,pyroxene and biotite, were called the Pochuck

Gneiss. Coarsely crystalline limestone or mar

ble was classified, along with large exposures of

similar, but ore-bearing rock at Franklin, in

Sussex County, as the Franklin formation.

The formation names are no longer used.

Instead, these highly complex rocks have been

reclassified on the basis of detailed petrologic

mapping. However, with the exception of

marble, water-bearing properties of these rocks

are related more to the extent of local fracturing,

rather than mineral composition. Marble is the

exception, since, like limestone, it is subject to

dissolution when exposed to acidic water.

Dissolved cavities, or enlarged fractures can

significantly increase the water-bearing ability

of a calcium carbonate formation . Precambrian


marble has been mapped in a few, relatively

small areas in Morris County.

Paleozoic. Shallow seas which covered

much of northern New Jersey during the Paleo

zoic Era deposited thousands of feet of sedimentary rock over the eroded surface of the

Precambrian rock. The compressional forces of

plate tectonics at the close of the Paleozoic era

folded the Precambrian and overlying Paleozoic

sequences together. Along with the folding, in

some localities large masses ofolder rocks were

displaced by over thrust faults, and now overlie

younger rocks. More than 230 million years of

erosion removed thousands of feet of the se

quence, forming the outcrop pattern observed

today.

As previously stated, Paleozoic sedimentary

rock is exposed at the surface in three separate

belts. The largest of the outcrop belts is parallel

to the western boundary of the county, from

northern Jefferson Township to southern Wash

ington Township. The width of this valley

varies from less than a mile to approximately 4

miles at the northern end. The southern portion

of this outcrop belt is fork shaped. The western

side of the fork forms part of the basin of the

South Branch of the Raritan River. The

Lamington River Basin includes part of theeastern portion of the fork.

The second Paleozoic outcrop belt is a por

tion of the Musconetcong Basin, at the south

west corner of the county, in Washington and

Mount Olive Townships. The third and smallest

of the belts is located at the southern border of

the county, west ofMendham.

From the perspective of ground water sup

ply, the limestone deposited in the Late Cam

brian and Early Ordovician Periods (Cambro

Ordovician) has significantly better water bear

ing potential than the Precambrian rocks.

Cambro-Ordovician limestones are wide

spread in the Appalachian province. These

rocks were formed in warm, shallow seas, under

conditions probably similar to those in the

present day Bahama Islands. Although gener

ally similar conditions existed during deposi-



tion, local differences and changing conditions

over time produced distinctly different litholo

gies. Consequently, different formation names

have been applied to these rocks in different

localities. In New Jersey, the entire sequence

was originally mapped as the Kittatinny Lime

stone. Distinctly different lithologies were

recognized in the lower, middle and upper

portions. Several formation and member names

have been applied to portions of the sequence

formerly mapped as Kittatinny. In Morris

County, the Leithsville and Allentown forma

tions constitute the major carbonate units, how

ever, the Beekmantown is present in the Pea

pack Valley. Well cuttings indicate that the

upper formations are present in the Kenvil

Succasunna area (Markewicz, et al. , 1981 ). Thelower contact of the Leithsville formation is

gradational with the underlying Hardystone

quartzite. The formation consists primarily of

thin-bedded to massive calcareous dolomite.

Occasional beds of orthoquartzite and

calcarenite have been observed. The full thick

ness of the Leithsville is not known with cer

tainty, but is thought to average 750 feet. The

Leithsville is generally considered lower to

middle Cambrian.

The Leithsville has been subdivided into

three members. The oldest member (Califon) isgenerally less than 100 feet thick, and is absent

in areas where the underlying precambrian rock

formed topographic highs during the period of

depositions. The Califon member is generally a

medium-to-course-grained dolomite. The

Hamburg member, usually 150 feet thick or less,

is a banded, shaly dolomite. The upper Walkill

member is the thickest (about 500 feet), and is

composed of fine-to-medium-grained thin-to

thick-bedded dolomite. The Califon and Walkill

members have been found by Markewicz and

the MCMUA to be potentially high-yield water

bearing units.

The Allentown formation has a distinctive

appearance in weathered outcrop of alternating

light and dark colored beds. The upper Cam-

1-7

brian Allentown is thought to exceed 1700 feet.

The lower part of the Allentown is known as the

Limeport member. The thickness of the Lime

port member varies from 400 ft. to 700 ft. I t is

a fine and medium-grained dolomite, which is

characterized by algal structure, mud cracks,

ripple marks, and other sedimentary structures.

The upper member of the Allentown, up to 1200

feet thick, is more massively bedded than the

Limeport member and contains fewer fossil and

sedimentary features.-- -Cambro-Ordovician I mestones

were formed in warm. shallow seas.

under conditions similar to those in th e

Bahama Islands.-- -The hydrologic importance of these forma

tions is the water-bearing solution cavities they

contain. For a more detailed description of the

geohydrologic properties of the Kittatinny

formation the reader is referred to Markewicz, et

al. (1981). As discussed below, they are capable

of producing high yield wells. Both formationsare composed primarily of dolomite (calcium

magnesium carbonate) rather than pure lime

stone (calcium carbonate), which is generally

more soluble.

A break in the depositional record, or un

conformity, exists between the top of the Allen

town formation and the overlying Ordovician

rocks. This variegated shale and siltstone,

which is mapped as the Jutland Klippe Se

quence, does not have a significant potential for

water supply development.

Three formations that were deposited during

the Silurian have been mapped in Morris

County: the Green Pond Conglomerate, the

Longwood Shale, and the Decker Limestone.

None of the formations are of significance as

aquifers.




The youngest of the Paleozoic formations in

Morris County are the Kanouse Sandstone and

the Cornwall Shale, which were deposited in the

Devonian Period. Like the Silurian formations,

they are not important aquifers.Mesozoic. At the end of the Paleozoic, the

area which is now North America was connect

ed with North Africa. The continental collision

which caused the folding and faulting of the

Precambrian and early Paleozoic sequence had

created the Appalachian Mountain system. It

was equivalent to the Rocky Mountains or the

Himalayas of oday. An uninterrupted period of

erosion began in western Morris County, and is

still ongoing. Much of the eroded sediment

from the Appalachian Mountains was deposited

in a down-faulted basin, which includes theeastern third of Morris County. The border

fault, which today forms the boundary between

the Highlands and the Piedmont Physiographic

provinces, passes through Morristown and

continues in a generally northeast line through

Riverdale. As thousands of feet of rock were

eroded from the mountains to the west, the fault

allowed the basin floor to drop, making room

above for the sediment to accumulate.

Mesozoic sedimentary rock in Morris Coun

ty is predominantly reddish brown sandstoneand shale, with some conglomerate, primarily

near the border fault. In addition to the sedi

ments, three major episodes of volcanic erup

tions resulted in basalt formations, each hun

dreds of feet thick.

The Geologic Map ofNew Jersey (Lewis, et

al., 1910-1912) shows the Mesozoic sedimen

tary rock in Morris County mapped as the

Brunswick formation, which is mostly soft red

shale, with some conglomerate in the vicinity of

the border fault. The igneous rock was mapped

as the Watchung Basalt, which consists of threeseparate flow units. The third flow unit out

crops in Morris County. All of the rocks are

shown as being of Triassic age.

Recently, new names have been established

for the Brunswick and the Watchung formations,

and it has been determined that the upper por-


tions of this massive sequence of more than

6000 feet, including most of the portion con

tained in Morris County, was actually deposited

in the early Jurassic Period. These revisions to

the geologic map have little bearing on watersupply issues, other than a change in names for

the rock formations. By the new definition, all

of what used to be called the Brunswick forma

tion below the first Watchung basalt flow is now

called the Passaic formation.

The First Watchung Basalt (650 feet thick) is

called the Orange Mountain Basalt. Sedi

mentary rock between the first and second

Watchung basalt flows (2000 feet) is cal led the

Feltville Formation. The former Second Wat

chung Basalt is called the Preakness Basalt

(1 000 feet thick). Sedimentary rock between thesecond and third basalt flows (1100 feet) is now

called the Towaco Formation. The former Third

Watchung Basalt (350 feet) now has the name

Hook Mountain Basalt. Finally, the upper

portion of the old Brunswick formation, about

1500 feet thick, above the final basalt flow, is

now mapped as the Boonton Formation. The

entire sequence of Triassic/Jurassic rocks was

previously called the Newark Group. It is now

known as the Brunswick Group of the Newark

Super Group. The new names have not been

universally accepted by geologists, and it is

likely that both sets of names will continue to be

used for many years.

Unconsolidated Formations

There is no geologic record in Morris County

for the events between the Late Triassic/Early

Jurassic and the Pleistocene. For 100 million

years or more, the rocks of Morris County were

reduced by erosion, providing the source for the

sands and clays of the coastal plain and continental shelf.

The unconsolidated sediments found in

Morris County were deposited directly by the

advancing glaciers and indirectly by melt water

as glaciers retreated. The Pleistocene is not the

only time in the history of the earth that glaciers



have formed, but the process has apparently not

happened often. Glaciation has a profound

effect on climate and landform when it happens.

Figure 1-1 is a simplified map of the surficial

geology ofMorris County. The mapis

based onopen file maps prepared by Stanford et al.,

(1990) of the NJGS. As the name surficial

implies, the formations shown are those exposed

at the surface. The emphasis in this version of

the map is hydrogeologic potential; therefore,

thin units, or those which generally exhibit low

permeability, are not included.

The most prominent feature on the map, and

in the field, is the terminal moraine of the Wis

consin Glaciation, which marks the southern

extent of the advance of the last episode of the

glaciers. The terminal moraine was formedfrom the debris pushed in front of he advancing

glacier. It is composed of an unstratified mix

ture of sand, silt and gravel, hundreds of feet

thick. Remnants of glacially deposited soils

from previous episodes exist south of the mo

raine. Those north of it were reworked during

the last period of glacial advance.

- -- -he importance of surficial formations

to water supply is their ability to

recharge deeper aquifers.

- -The remaining materials highlighted on the

map, including deltaic, fluvial and lacustrine fan

sediments, have been mapped previously as

stratified drift. These formations are generally

composed of sand and gravel, with silt and

minor clay beds. Such units are formed in a

complex, frequently changing sedimentaryenvironment. However, they have a character

istic in common; they were deposited by flow

ing water. This depositional environment pro

vided the mechanism for sorting the sediment

into relatively homogenous layers, from which

1-9

they derived the potential for being useful

aquifers.

Surficial formations seldom are capable of

producing large quantities of water, and they are

highly sensitive to contamination. The importance of surficial formations to water supply is

their ability to recharge deeper aquifers.

1.1.2 Hydrogeology

Ground water has been used in Morris

County since the early days of settlement.

Major ground water withdrawals for potable

consumption have been made since the late

1800s, especially in the Central Passaic Basin

along the eastern part of Morris County. With

seemingly unlimited water supplies, land development was not organized to make the most

efficient use of the aquifer systems. Conse

quently, in some localities overpumping has

lowered water levels due to withdrawals exceed

ing the recharge of the aquifer. Development

over recharge areas has resulted in impervious

surfaces preventing recharge to the aquifer. In

addition, ground water quality has been im

paired due to attendant urban runoff entering the

aquifers.

The MCMUA has been conducting a vigorous program ofground water research which not

only has led to a better understanding of the

lithologic and hydrogeologic characteristics of

the carbonate aquifers of the Kittatinny Group,

but also has formed the stimulus for the Laming

ton aquifer investigation. In addition, the

MCMUA maintains a network of observation

wells, which provide extensive data on water

levels in their wellfields.

The need for protection of the aquifers has

been recognized for many years. Research

programs have been underway by the USEP Aand the NJDEPE to gather the data needed to

manage the aquifers more effectively. A great

deal of data has been collected in research

conducted over the past decade, but the pro

grams are not complete. The NJGS and USGS




are currently studying the Central Passaic,

Rockaway, and Lamington Buried Valley Aqui

fers. A Potential Aquifer and Recharge Area

Map (Figure 1-2) has been prepared by Camp,

Dresser & McKee Inc. based on informationavailable from NJGS as of May 1992.

The largest study area as shown on the map

is the Central Passaic Basin. Studies for this

area have progressed the furthest, and more

information is available for this buried valley

system than the Rockaway or Lamington Buried

Valleys. The basin, which extends beyond the

eastern border of Morris County, coincides with

the Piedmont physiographic province, and the

outcrop area of he Mesozoic rocks. The Central

Passaic Basin Buried Valley Aquifer is located

along the eastern border ofMorris County from

Pequannock to Parsippany-Troy Hills to Har

ding and Long Hill Townships.

The Rockaway River Basin study area is

near the geographic center of the county, in the

Highlands physiographic province. The area

overlies the Precambrian crystalline rocks. The

terminal moraine crosses the study area. Its

location generally corresponds with the Roc

kaway River valley in central Morris County,

extending through the municipalities of Whar

ton, Dover, Rockaway Borough, RockawayTownship, and Denville.

The third study area (Long Valley) is located

in the basins of he Larnington and Black Rivers,

near the western border ofMorris County, from

Rockaway Township, through Roxbury, Mount

Olive, and Chester Township, to Washington

Township. The area is within the Highlands

province, and overlies the largest of the three

Paleozoic outcrop belts in Morris County.

Unlike the two other study areas, one of the

bedrock formations in this area has the potential

of being a high producing aquifer, in conjunc

tion with sand and gravel buried valley fill

deposits. An isolated and detached carbonate

aquifer, limited in subsurface extent, has been

identified as Leithsville by Markewicz in the

area of he Foreign Trade Zone in Mount Olive.


Potential aquifers, outside the three buried

valley study areas, are also shown in Figure 1-2.

One potential carbonate bedrock aquifer is

shown east of the Musconetcong River, in

Mount Olive Township near Netcong. ThisCambro-Ordovician limestone formation, along

with the one shown within the Long Valley

study area, has been studied by the MCMUA as

potential sources of future supply. Additional

aquifer exploration and research in bedrock

aquifer systems has been performed by

MCMUA in the Washington Valley. Results of

all three MCMUA studies indicate the presence

of important potential ground water resources.

Less is known about the potential unconsol

idated aquifers shown outside the Buried Valley

study areas. These potential water-bearingzones are based on the thickness of unconsoli

dated material, as mapped by the NJGS. A

minimum thickness of 50 feet was selected for

mapping unconsolidated sediments, because a

formation less than 50 feet is unlikely to be able

to produce sufficient water to be useful as an

aquifer for municipal water supplies. Some of

the areas depicted, such as the upper portion of

the Larnington River Basin, in Jefferson Town

ship, have good potential as aquifers, including

thickness (greater than 50 feet), permeable

material (fluvial over lacustrine fan sediments)and available recharge (the river). A thickness

ofmore than 50 feet for unconsolidated material

or the existence of a carbonate bedrock forma

tion does not indicate that a water supply could

be developed within the mapped areas. How

ever, it would be prudent to consider such areas



Surficial Geology

Surficial Materials

D

Deltaic and LacustrineFan Sediment

Fluvial over LacustrineFan Sediment

D Alluvial Fan Deposits

Fluvial Sediment

Ice-Contact Sediment

D

M 0 U N T

T W P

!7ASHINGTON TWP

N 0 R T H

0 2 3 4 5 Miles

0 2 3 4 5 6 7 Kilometers

1 inch to 8,300 feet

Morainic Deposits

Till, Lake Sediments,Weathered Bedrock,Colluvium

J E F F E

RANDOLPH

CHESTER

T W P

SOURCES:

B 0 R 0

Political Boundaries: MCPB, 1992. 1 48,000.Surficial Materials: Stanford, Scott D. (N)GS), 1991.

N D H A M

T W P

[:)

Principal Surficial Materials of Morris County, New Jersey. 1: I00,000 .

Map prepared by:

Camp Dresser & McKeeMorris County Planning Board

ROCKAWAY TWP

MORRIS

T W P

HARDING

LONG HILL

T W P

•I N

ROY HILLS

H A N 0 V E R

1994 Water Supply Master

County of Morris, New Jers

Morris County Planning Bo

Figure 1 -1 : Surficial Geology



Potential Aquifers and

Recharge AreasAquifers

,----------.

Surficial Material> 50 feet deep

: : NJGS Buried ValleyI I

: : Aquifer Study Areas·--- -----·•D

N 0

NJGS -delineatedBuried Valleys

Carbonate and MarbleBedrock Aquifers

R T H

M 0 U

II

0 2 3 4 5 Miles



NJGS-delineatedUnconfined Aquifers

NJGS-delineatedSemi-Confined Valleys

NJGS-delineatedSemi-Confined{dewatered) Aquifers

CHESTER

T W P

SOURCES:Political Boundaries: MCPB. 1992. 1 48,000.

t

I

' I' I

J E F F E R S 0 N

:f R A N D 0 L P H,.____________________________ _

',#'''•,

B 0 R 0

D H A M

T W P

Surficial Material Thickness: Stanford, Scott D., Ronald W. Witte, and David P. Harper (NJGS).1990. Contoured Thickness of Surtlcial Glacial Deposits of Northern New Jersey . 1:100,000.

NJGS -Delineated Aquifers and Buried Valleys: Hoffman, Jeffrey L. (N]GS), 1991 .Location of Sand and Gravel Aquifers in the Central Passaic River Basin. 1 2 4,000.

Rockaway Valley Study Area: Canace, Robert, Scott Stanford, and David Hall (N]GS) , 1991.

DRAFT COPY: Hydrogeologic Framework of the Rockaway River Basin between Wharton andMontville, Morris County, N] .

Lamington River Study Area: McAuley, Steven D., Robert S Nicholson, Julia L. Barringer,and George] . Blyskun. 1990. DRAFT COPY: Evaluation of the Valley-Fill and Carbonate

Rock Aquifers near Long Valley in the New Jersey Highlands: Plan of Study.

Carbonate and Marble Bedrock Aquifers; Markewicz, Frank J. (MCMUA). 1992. CarbonateAquifers of Western Morris County and Marble Carbonate Aquifer in Washington Valley . 1:48,000.

Map prepared by: Camp Dresser & McKee, Morris County Planning Board

ROCKAWAY T W P

HARD I NG

KINNELON




Figure 1·2: Potential Aquifers

Recharge Areas



as sensitive recharge and potential aquifer areas

until field exploration demonstrates otherwise.

The Buried Valley Systems

A buried valley is a depression in the bed

rock surface that has been filled with sediment.

Thus, a buried valley aquifer is a buried valley

that meets the definition of an aquifer, i.e. a

formation capable of yielding water in sufficient

quantity and of adequate quality to be economi

cally useful.-- -he presence of a buried valley ma y

be suspected based on the surrounding

bedrock formations. drainage patterns. and

other factors .

- -Because a buried valley is filled with sedi

ment, its location cannot be observed directly in

the field. The presence of a buried valley may

be suspected based on the surrounding bedrock

formations, drainage patterns, and other factors.

However, direct investigation methods, such asdrilling a test boring or well, or by indirect

methods, such as geophysical techniques, are

necessary to confirm the presence of a buried

valley. A combination of geophysical tech

niques, such as seismic refraction, gravity

investigations, and electrical resistivity are used

to estimate the depth to bedrock, and tentatively

identify the type of sediment with which the

valley is filled. The only way to confirm that a

buried valley is an aquifer is to evaluate its

water bearing performance using pumping tests.

Pumping tests evaluate the potential performance of an aquifer by measuring changes in

water levels in observations wells near the

pumping well.

The long-term performance of an aquifer can

be predicted by use ofa numerical simulation on

1-11

a computer. Computer models are being devel

oped for selected buried valley aquifers in

Morris County by USGS and NJGS. Develop

ment and calibration of computer models for

buried valley aquifers in the three study areas is

one of the major objectives of the investigations

in progress.

In order to develop water supplies from a

buried valley aquifer in a manner that will allow

long-term use, it is necessary to consider the

source and mechanisms of ground water re

charge. In general, most recharge to buried

valleys originates from the precipitation that

falls on the valley or its watershed. If surficial

materials are permeable, the water can percolate

directly to an unconfined, or water table aquifer.

If the surficial material is of low permeability,lesser quantities of water will recharge through

to an underlying confined aquifer. The direction

of ground water flow along the boundary be

tween the valley fill sediment and the bedrock

could be one of recharge or discharge, depend

ing on local hydrogeologic conditions.

Without ground water withdrawal an aquifer

system maintains a balance between recharge

and discharge. Once pumping begins, that

balance is altered. Water is withdrawn from

aquifer storage, and as a result, water levels

drop. Lowered water levels may then induce

recharge at a greater rate. For example, if water

is pumped from a valley fill aquifer in hydraulic

connection with a river, recharge from the river

can be induced. If the quality of the river water

is good, a dependable water supply can be

established, assuming the withdrawal rate does

not exceed the base flow of the river. If with

drawal exceeds recharge on a continuing basis,

eventually the aquifer will be dewatered, and

that water supply will be lost.

A conceptual model can be developed, whichpostulates the volume of recharge from sur

rounding bedrock as well as from rainfall, and

the volume of discharge from the system, either

through pumping or by moving past the bound

ary of the system. The conceptual model is then




used to assist in development of a computer

model, by defining boundary conditions and an

overall water budget. A model must be cali

brated (i.e., before the results of a simulation

can be considered reliable). Calibration isachieved by comparison of computer simula

tions with historic records. The longer the

calibration run, the more confidence may be

placed in the simulation.

Central Passaic Basin. The buried valley

system in the Central Passaic Basin, which is

shared with Essex County, is the largest, most

studied, and probably the best understood in

Morris County.

An extensive investigation plan for the Basin

was outlined by Hoffman (1989a). The investi

gation is a joint effort between the NJGS and theUSGS. The goal of the investigation is to pro

vide a detailed understanding of the

hydrogeology, hydrogeochemistry, and existing

ground water use, from which a reliable three

dimensional computer model can be developed

and calibrated. That aquifer model can then be

used to assist in planning and managing Central

Passaic Basin ground water supplies.

The extent of the buried valley aquifer sys

tem in the Central Passaic Basin is delineated in

Figure 1-2, based on preliminary informationavailable from NJGS. The boundary represents

the current state ofknowledge and investigation

regarding that aquifer's extent. The delineation

has been synthesized by the NJGS from pub

lished and unpublished data generated by NJGS

and USGS. Portions of the valleys are filled

with highly productive sand and gravel aquifers,


under confined, semi-confined and water table

conditions.

Portions of the buried valley system in the

Central Passaic Basin are not productive aqui

fers. For example, a branch of the systemextending from Parsippany-Troy Hills north to

Montville, and two sections of the system south

west of Chatham are not productive water

bearing elements of the buried valley system.

Although portions of the buried valley sys

tem are the most productive ground water pro

ducing elements in the Central Passaic Basin,

bedrock should not be dismissed in this area.

Productive wells have been completed in the

Triassic-Jurassic shale. Furthermore, the bed

rock and the buried valley aquifer systems arehydraulically interconnected, so a stress on one

aquifer system can stress the other aquifer.

Modeling has been conducted in the basin in

the past (Meisler, 1976; Hoffman, 1989b). The

existing model is limited in its ability to simu

late observed drawdown, primarily because flow

to and from the bedrock was not taken into

account.

The conceptual model of he basin (including

the Essex County portion) is of a nearly closed

system. According to the conceptual model,

prior to ground water withdrawals from the area,

bedrock recharge occurred in the uplands be

yond the basin borders. The path of gground

waterflow in the bedrock was downward from

the recharge areas, and then upward into the

unconsolidated sediments deposited in the

valleys. Ground water would leave the basin

primarily by discharge to the surface, where it is

lost from the basin by river flow, evaporation, or

by subsurface flow through a sediment-filled

valley (the Hobart Gap) in the First Watchung

Mountain,or

directly through the fracture systems in the rocks.

Under the pre-pumping conditions, ground

water elevations in some of the confined aqui

fers in the central valley were higher than the

ground surface, which resulted in flowing wells.

Years of pumping have lowered water levels

significantly, and have altered the water balance



of the basin by allowing water to leave the basin

via transfer of pumped ground water from local

water users to sewage treatment plants discharg

ing to different drainage basins.

Rockaway Basin.The NJGS began an investigation of the hydrogeology of the Rockaway

Basin during a drought period in 1980 and 1981

to determine if ground water from the Rockaway

buried valley system could be used to supple

ment streamflow (Canace, et al., 1983). Addi

tional investigation, as a cooperative NJGS and

USGS effort is in progress (Schaefer, et al.,

1991 ). Primary investigative tools have been

geologic mapping, compilation of subsurface

data from well and boring records, and geophys

ical (seismic) techniques.

A confined sand and gravel unit, up to approximately 30 feet thick, was identified in the

deeper portions of the central Rockaway Basin.

The lower aquifer is then overlain by fme lacus

trine sediments and glacial till that form an

impediment to recharge. Fluvial and deltaic

sediments overlie the confining sediments to

form an unconfined upper aquifer.

Bedrock beneath all but the eastern portion

of the Rockaway study area is Precambrian

crystalline rock. While there is probably some

interconnection between consolidated andunconsolidated materials, potential productivity

of he Precambrian rock is much lower than the

Triassic-Jurassic shales.

Long Vallev Study Area. The third of the

ongoing ground water investigation areas is in

an area that overlies primarily Paleozoic rocks,

including an extensive outcrop of the Leithsville

formation. To date, only the USGS/ NJGS plan

of study (McAuley, et al., 1990) has been re

leased. This plan of study is based, in part, upon

the exploration program conducted by

MCMUA.

Most of the study area is south of the Wis

consin Terminal Moraine. Valley fill material is

relatively thin, especially in the southern part of

the area. In the northern portion of the study

1-13

area, near Picatinny Lake, valley fill material

exceeds 300 feet.

Two conceptual models for the area are

being investigated by USGS/NJGS. In the

northern halfof the valley, north ofFlanders, theupper unit is a shallow, water table aquifer in

unconsolidated sediment. This overlies a leaky

confining unit, which overlies a confined aquifer

of valley fill material. Beneath the lower con

fined unconsolidated aquifer is a weathered rock

confining unit, over a limestone aquifer.

In the southern half of the investigation area

is an unconfined valley fill aquifer, over a

weathered rock confming zone, over a confined

limestone aquifer. It is believed that ground

water recharge flows from bedrock ridges,

through the limestone, to the (unconsolidated)valley fill deposits, although reverse flows may

occur from the unconsolidated sediments to the

limestone in places. Flow relationships will be

investigated as part of the USGS/NJGS study.

1.2 GROUNDWATER

AVAILABILITY/BASE FLOW ANALYSIS

Base flow indicators of ground water avail

ability in Morris County generally show in

creasing ground water availability as a conceptual point of withdrawal is moved from eastern

to western Morris County. This general obser

vation is based on a preliminary analysis of

stream base flow, using data obtained from

NJDEPE/NJGS1• The NJGS analysis of histori

cal streamflow records yielded estimates of

stream base flow at several USGS stream gaging

stations. Stream base flow is assumed to be

attributable to ground water discharge, which in

tum is a function of ground water recharge and

pumping. (Please refer to the previous section

1Data obtained from NJGS in a letter transmitted to

Ray Zabihach, dated June 2, 1992, from Robert

Canace regarding "Ground Water Runoff Rates for

Morris County."




Map Station Name Period ofRecord

---01379500 Passaic River near 1938-89Chatham, NJ

2 01380500 Rockaway River at Boonton 1938-89Reservoir, Boonton, NJ

3 01381500 Whippany River at 1922-89

Morristown, NJ

6 01388500 Pompton River at 1941 -89Pomptom Plains, NJ

7 01389500 Passaic River at 1898-89Little Falls, NJ

(Map #7 incremental)

8 01456000 Musconetcong River, near 1922-73Hackettstown, NJ

9 01457000 Musconetcong River, near 1922-89

Bloomsbury, NJ

(Map #9 incremental)

10 01396500 South Branch Raritan River, 1919-89near High Bridge, NJ

11 01398500 North Branch Raritan River, 1922-75;

near Far Hills, NJ 1978-89

12 01399500 Lamington (Black) River, 1922-89near Pottersville, NJ

Source: Camp, Dresser and McKee, 1993

DrainageArea(sq. mi.)

100

116

29.4

355

762

161.6

70

141

71

65.3

26.2

32.8

Table 1-1

Stream Baseflow

AverageDischarge Posten(in/yr)

Mean I 940- 11960-

89 66

23.2 8.14 8.55 5.65

27.0 15.05 14.96 10.88

24.5 13.41 13.83 10.34

18.4 8.97 8.97 6.45

20.6 10.181 9.38 6.1318.4 0.02 5.98 1.55

22 .3 14.79 15.43 10.77

22 .7 15 .67 16.10 11 .33

23.1 16.54 16.76 11 .88

25.4 14 .96 15.24 11 .28

24.9 13.89 14.09 9.80

23.2 14.65 14.81 10.35

Base Flow in inches

Slide Average

Mean I 1940- 11960-

89 66Mean I 1940- 11966-

89 66

14.71 14.85 10.30 11.43 11 .70 7.98

19.28 19.16 13.93 17.17 17.06 12 .41

18.05 18.58 13.78 15.73 16.21 12 .06

10.89 10.89 7.82 9.93 9.93 7.14

13.57 12.62 8.07 11 .88 11.00 7.1013.84 9.26 1.99 11.93 7.62 1.77

18.79 19.32 13.97 16.79 17.38 12 .37

18.52 18.93 13.15 17.10 17.52 12 .24

18.25 18.55 12.34 17.40 17.65 12.11

18.09 18.28 13.55 16.53 16.76 12.42

18.67 18.86 13.37 16.28 16.48 11 .59

18.01 18.11 12.94 16.33 16.46 11 .65



on geology and hydrology for a discussion of

potential aquifer recharge areas.) The stream

base flow estimates obtained from NJGS are

reported in units of inches per year (in/yr),

which represents the depth to which the water

attributable to base flow would be if the total

annual base flow were distributed evenly over

the entire drainage area of the stream. The units

in which base flow is expressed (in/yr) can be

easily converted to cubic feet per second per

square mile (cfs/sq.mi.) of drainage area or any

other "volume per time (flow rate) per (drain

age) area" units.

Of the stations analyzed by NJGS, ten were

selected whose drainage areas account for a

majority of runoff in Morris County2• The

results ofNJGS's base flow analysis are presented in Table 1-1 , and depicted spatially in Fig

ure 1-4. Figure 1-4 shows the areas that exhibit

(a) relatively high base flow (between 1.2 and

1.3 cfs per square mile of drainage area), (b)

relatively moderate base flow (between 1.1 and

1.2 cfs per square mile), or (c) relatively low

base flow (between 0.7 and 0.9 cfs per square

mile). Actual base flows hav'e been grouped

into one of these three ranges for analytical and

presentation purposes. Low, moderate, and high

base flows are determined relative to flows

occurring in Morris County during the monitoring period. There were no stations with

base flows between 0.9 and 1.1 cfs per square

mile.

As seen in Figure 1-4, the stations with

drainage areas in the eastern and extreme north

em portions of Morris County (stations 1, 6, and

7) exhibited the lowest base flows, relative to

the size of their drainage areas. Stations with

drainage areas in the south-central section of the

county (stations 3, 11 , and 12) exhibited moder

ate base flows, relative to the sizeof

heir drainage areas. The highest base flows, relative to

the size of he drainage area, are associated with

2For additional information regarding the NJGS base

flow analysis, please refer to Appendix A.

1-15

drainage areas in the central and western por

tions of the county (stations 2, 8, 9, and 10).

The relative magnitude of he base flow is a

good indicator of potential availability of g-

round water resources.If

base flows are high,then a large amount of ground water is being

discharged to streams. If base flows are low,

then either the aquifer is receiving less recharge,

or much of the water in the aquifer is being

removed through other means (i.e. , through

pumping of the aquifer). The second case is

most likely the reason for the apparent trend of

lower base flow amounts in the eastern portion

of the county where a majority of production

wells are located-lower base flow can be

expected to occur in areas with higher pumping.

Base flows are most likely low in the extreme

northern portion of the county due to the ab

sence of productive aquifers in this area (see

Section 1.1 ).

Another issue in the interpretation of this

base flow data is that the base flow amounts are

calculated using the surface water drainage area

upstream of each gaging station. The actual

ground water drainage divides may not coincide

closely to surface water drainage divides -

especially in the buried valley aquifers. Alter

ations to the surface topography have occurredsince the time that the buried valleys were

formed, and therefore the surface water may

flow in one direction and the ground water

underneath may flow in a different direction.

Also, the extent of the ground water aquifers in




many cases are not as large as the surface water

drainage area. Thus, because of the broad areal

extent of the information that is available, it is

not possible to determine the actual amount of

recharge to the aquifer and the locations ofrecharge within the drainage area from this

analysis.

The relative magnitude of th e

base flow is a good indicator of potential

availability of ground water resources.

However, the results of his analysis do show

a definite trend of lower stream base flows in

the eastern portion of Morris County and higher

base flows in the western portion of the county.

These results support and strengthen the conclu

sion that the eastern portion of Morris County

may be showing signs of overpumping, and that

there may be ground water resources in the

western portion of he county that have a poten

tial for greater utilization.

1.3 WATER SUPPLY AVAILABILITY

A preliminary review of data on water use

transfers among each of three watersheds (col

lected for the Statewide Water Supply Master

Plan) indicates that for watersheds in Morris

County transfer of water resources out of the

county greatly exceeds transfer of supplies into

the county. This is largely due to the transfer of

surface water supplies from Jersey City's Boon

ton Reservoir for use in Jersey City and final

discharge via Jersey City's wastewater treatment

plants out of the Rockaway Basin3• The water

3This analysis is based on data provided by

NJDEPE/Water Supply Element/Bureau of WaterSupply Planning & Policy, from the spreadsheetentitled "Depletive Water Use for Regional Water


budget analysis is the first attempt by NJDEPE

to collect such data and has been evaluated as

part of he Statewide Water Supply Master Plan

effort. The data have not been subject to a strict

data review, and the accuracy of water withdrawal and discharge information as well as

geographic assignments are only approximate.

However, the data do provide general insight

into water resource management issues in Mor

ris County.

A preliminary review of this data indicates

that there are some discrepancies between

reported withdrawal rates and actual withdrawal

rates. Also, the database obtained for this pro

ject includes only data for which the associated

discharge or withdrawal location was in Morris

County. There are two reservoirs that form partof he northern boundary ofMorris County (Oak

Ridge Reservoir and Charlotteburg Reservoir)

which are not included in this analysis because

the withdrawal locations from these reservoirs

are in Passaic County.

The current revision of the Statewide Water

Supply Master Plan establishes a set of regional

water resource planning areas (RWRP As) across

the state, three of which cover parts of Morris

County (numbers 4, 8, and 10). The boundaries

between these three R WRP As within MorrisCounty are the watershed divides between the

Passaic, Delaware, and Raritan Rivers. The

Statewide Water Supply Master Plan considers

any diversion of water (ground or surface)

within one RWRPA and discharge to another

R WRPA as a depletive water use within that

basin. Also, the Statewide Water Supply Master

Plan assumes that half of any water diverted for

agricultural use (including golf courses and

parks) is lost to evapotranspiration or uptake,

and thus is also a depletive water use.

Resource Planning Areas (RWRPAs)" resulting from

the Statewide Water Supply Master Plan RevisionStudy. Average water usage was reported for 1986 to1989. The spreadsheet was namedMASTERWW.WK3, and was dated 16-July-1992.



1 0 ~

Stream Base Flow

D

D

Relatively High Base Flow(between 1.2 and 1.3 cfs/sq. mi.)

Relatively Moderate Base Flow(between 1.1 and 1.2 cfs/sq. mi.)

Relatively Low Base Flow(between 0.7 and 0 .9 cfs/sq. mi .)

Data Inconclusive

USGS Gaging Station

Drainage Divide Line

[NOTE: See Appendix A for Gaging Station Area Descriptions.]

N 0 R T H

0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles


1 nch to 8,300 feet

T W P

11

SOURCES:Political Boundaries: MCPB, 1992. I 48,000.Drainage Divides: USGS, 1988. Drainage Basin Divides for New Jersey. I 24,000.Base Flow Rates: NJGS, 1992. Ground-water Runoff Rates for Morris County .

Map prepared by:


HARDING

LONG HILLT W P

MONTVILLEPARK

IP PANY-TROY HI I . : .LS

H A N 0 V E R

P A R K

T W P

E A S T

1994 Water Supply Maste

County of Morris, New Jer


Figure 1-4: Stream Base Flow



Surface Water Features

and Drainage Basins

Major Rivers_ Primary Drainage Divide

(Passaic, Raritan, Delaware)

Secondary Rivers Secondary Drainage Divide

Minor Streams Major Tertiary DrainageDivide

Lakes, Ponds, Reservoirs

N 0 R T H RARITAN2 3

0 2 3 4 5


4 5 Miles

6 7 KilometersSOURCES:Political Boundaries: MCPB, 1992, 1 48,000.Drainage Divides: USGS, 1988. Drainage Basin Divides for New Jersey . 1:24,000.

Map Prepared By:


• .

1994 Water Supply Maste

County of Morris, New Je


Figure 1-l: Surface Water Fea

Drainage Basins



For this analysis, transfers into and out of

Morris County were evaluated, as well as

transfers between RWRPAs. Approximately 20

percent of the transfers of water into the county

involve transfers across R WRPAs, and are thus

depletive; approximately 98 percent of thetransfers of water out of the county involve

transfers across R WRP As.

1.3.1 County-wide Transfers-Out of

Morris County

According to preliminary NJDEPE data, the

total water transfer out of Morris County from

sources within the county is 54.3 MGD . Surface

water sources make up more than 90% of this

amount (50.3 MGD); ground water supplies are

the source of less than 10% of transfers out of

the county (4.1 MGD). Diverters within MorrisCounty who discharge outside of Morris County

are listed below.

6 Jersey City withdraws 49.6 MGD from

the Boonton Reservoir on the Rockaway

River (in Boonton Town). Of this water,

1.1 MGD is discharged at the Caldwell

Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) in Essex

County, 2.0 MGD is discharged at

Passaic Valley Water Commission's

treatment plant in Newark, 8.0 MGD is

discharged at the Hoboken STP, and 38.5

MGD is discharged at Jersey City's STP

#1 and #2.

6 East Orange City pumps 3.5 MGD from

stratified drift wells within Florham Park

1-17

Borough. This water is discharged at

PVSC's treatment plant in Newark.

6 Hackettstown MUA withdraws 0.65

MGD from the Musconetcong River in

Mount Olive Township and Washington

Township, and pumps 0.6 MGD from the

Kittatinny limestone in Washington

Township. This water is discharged at

the Hackettstown MUA treatment plant

in Warren County.

6 Additionally, the City of Newark with

draws water from the Charlotteburg

Reservoir (located along the northern

border of Rockaway Township) and the

Oak Ridge Reservoir (located along the

northern border of Jefferson Township).

From a standpoint ofRWRPAs, over 98% of

the total out-of-county water transfer (53.3

MGD) also involves a transfer from one

R WRP A to another. All of the ground water

pumped from aquifers inside Morris County and

discharged to surface waters in Essex, Hudson,

and Warren Counties is transferred from one

RWRPA to another. Almost 98% of the surface

water withdrawn within Morris County and

discharged outside ofthe county (49.2 MGD) is

discharged to a different major drainage basin

than the major basin from which it waswithdrawn.

1.3.2 County-wide Transfers-Into

Morris County

According to preliminary NJDEPE data, the

total water transfer into Morris County from

sources outside of the county between 1986 and

1989 was 6.5 MGD. However, the majority of

these water transfers into the county are supplies

which are used outside the county, but are

pumped to wastewater treatment plants that discharge to rivers bordering the county. Thus,

most of these water transfers do not serve to

increase the availability of water supply for

Morris County. Surface water supplies com

prise approximately 60% of transfers into




Morris County (4.1 MGD), while ground water

supplies are the source of the remaining 40%

(2.3 MGD). Out-of-county diverters who

discharge (release water back to the surface

water or ground water system) within MorrisCounty are listed below.

0 NJ American Water Company withdraws

2.2 MGD from the Upper Passaic/Canoe

Brook watershed in Millburn Township

in Essex County. Of his water, 1.0 MGD

is discharged to the Passaic Township

STP, and 1.2 MGD is discharged to the

Chatham STP.

0 Fairfield Township in Essex County

withdraws 0.7 MGD from stratified drift

wells. This water is discharged to the

Two Bridges STP in Lincoln Park.

0 Passaic Valley Water Commission diverts

1.4 MGD from the Passaic River in Little

Falls Township in Passaic County. This

water is discharged to the Two Bridges

STP in Lincoln Park.

0 The City of Newark diverts 0.5 MGD

from the Pequannock River in West Mil

ford Township in Passaic County. This

water is discharged to the Two Bridges

STPin Lincoln Park.

0 Sparta Township in Sussex County

pumps 1.0 MGD from wells in the Kitt

atinny limestone. This water is dis

charged to the Musconetcong STP.

0 Hopatcong Borough in Sussex County

pumps 0.4 MGD from a bedrock aquifer

(pre-Cambrian gneiss). This water is

discharged to the Musconetcong STP.

0 Stanhope Borough in Sussex County

pumps 0.2 MGD from a bedrock aquifer

(pre-Cambrian Franklin limestone). Thiswater is discharged to the Musconetcong

STP.

From a standpoint ofRWRPAs, 70% ofthe

total water transfers into Morris County ( 4.6

MGD) also involves a transfer from one

RWRPA to another. Sixty percent of the ground


water pumped from aquifers outside the county

and discharged to surface waters in Morris

County (1.4 MGD) remains in the same

RWRPA, thus only 40% (1.0 MGD) is consid

ered depletive. However, about 90%of

thesurface water withdrawn outside the county and

discharged within Morris County (3.61 MGD) is

discharged to a different major drainage basin

than the major basin from which it was

withdrawn.

A major project is being constructed which

will significantly increase the amount of water

being transferred into Morris County. The New

Jersey-American Water Company (NJ

American) is in the process of developing an

extensive regional interconnection project,

known as the WaterSource Project. The projectwas initiated because of the increasing demand

for water in the areas currently obtaining water

from the Passaic Buried Valley Aquifer system

which is suffering from ground water depletion.

NJ-American has obtained the right to

purchase up to 25 MGD from the Passaic Valley

Water Commission (PVWC). An 18 mile long

pipeline is being built from an extension of the

PVWC system in West Caldwell and will enter

Morris County through East Hanover. The

portionof

the pipeline in Morris County willextend from East Hanover through Florham

Park, Madison, and Chatham Township. The

pipeline was also to extend through Harding

Township into Bernards Township to serve NJ

American's Somerset County customers; how

ever, that project has been eliminated.

The Southeast Morris County MUA has

entered into an agreement to purchase up to six

(6) MGD from NJ-American through their

WaterSource Project. East Hanover, Florham

Park and Madison have emergency interconnec

tion agreements. Once the pipeline was completed, the NJ-American well in Florham Park

was removed from service and NJ-American

now uses out-of-county water to serve the Sam

mis Corporate Center and an area along Park

Avenue in the borough. NJ-American directly

serves customers in Chatham Township, Long



Hill Township, Mendham Borough and parts of

Mendham Township.

The WaterSource Project will potentially

more than double the total amount of water

transferred into the county. In addition, NJ

American has recently purchased the Mendham

Borough water franchise. An interconnection

completed in 1992 from the Mendham Borough

system with NJ-American's system in Bernards

ville allows out-of-county water to be used for

supplementing the borough's system daily.

1.3.3 County-wide Transfers-Water

Budget

Based on the information available regarding

the location and quantity of water diversion andwater discharge, 54.3 MGD was taken from

sources within Morris County (between 1986

and 1989) and was used and discharged outside

of the county. Only 6.5 MGD was taken from

sources outside Morris County and discharged

(as wastewater) within the county. Thus, Morris

County experienced a net loss of 47.9 million

gallons of water each day. More than 90% of

the water that is transferred out of the county

comes from the Boonton Reservoir. Nearly all

of the water that is transferred out of the county

is withdrawn from the center ofMorris County,and discharged far distant from its source, with

no chance of recharging the county's ground and

surface water supplies.

Nearly all of he water that is transferred into

the county is discharged as wastewater to either

the Pompton River, the Passaic River, or the

Musconetcong River, all of which are larger

rivers, and all ofwhich are on the boundaries of

Morris County. Both of these factors suggest

that only a very small amount of he into-county

transfer of water has the potential to rechargethe county's water supplies.

1-19

1.3.4 Major Intra-County Water

Transfers

Most of he water that is used within Morris

County is not discharged in a manner that has

the potential to effectively recharge the water

supply from which it was removed, mostly

because it involves withdrawals from ground

water and discharges to major surface water

ways. However, a portion of the discharges may

have the potential to effectively recharge other

water supply sources (either downstream or

within a different drainage basin). Nearly all

discharges in Morris County are to surface water

bodies--only agricultural uses and lawn and

garden water use are discharged to the land and

thus potentially percolate to the various groundwater systems in the county. The degree to

which the surface waters in Morris County are

potential sources of recharge to ground water

aquifers is not currently known. However,

surface water bodies in the county are most

often fed by ground water, instead of he surface

water recharging the aquifer.

A more likely scenario of a surface water

body acting as a source of water to the ground

water system is through induced recharge

caused by pumping water from an aquifer near

a surface water body. Ground water pumping

proximate to a surface waterway can cause a

drawdown in the aquifer which can locally cause

water to be drawn from the surface water body

into the aquifer to replace the water pumped out

of the well.

1.3.5 Conclusion

Approximately 101 MGD of water is

withdrawn from surface supplies (54 MGD) and

ground water sources (47 MGD) in MorrisCounty. More than half of the total water

withdrawal, and almost all of the surface water

withdrawal, is transferred out of Morris County.

(Jersey City has recently discussed making




surface water supplies from Boonton Reservoir

available within Morris County.)

1.4 SURFACE WATER

The majority of the water used in Morris

County is derived from underground sources.

However, a substantial amount of surface water

exists in Morris County. The county is bordered

on the east and south by the Passaic River, on

the north and east by the Pequannock and Pomp

ton Rivers, and on the west by Lake Hopatcong

and the Musconetcong River. The Rockaway

and Whippany Rivers traverse the eastern half

of the county, draining into the Passaic River.

The Lamington (Black) River and the North andSouth Branches of the Raritan River drain the

south-western portion of the county. There are

several reservoirs located in Morris County that

provide substantial amounts of drinking

water-Clyde Potts Reservoir, Boonton (Jersey

City) Reservoir, Split Rock Reservoir, Taylor

town Reservoir, Kakeout Reservoir, Charlotte

burg Reservoir, and Oak Ridge Reservoir.

However, all but three of these reservoirs

provide water for residents outside of Morris

County.

1.4.1 Drainage Basins

Morris County is divided into three primary

drainage basins: the Raritan, Passaic, and

Delaware River basins (see Figure 1-3). These

three primary drainage basins are further divided

on Figure 1-3 into secondary and major tertiary

drainage basins.

The Passaic River and its major tributaries

(the Pompton, Pequannock, Rockaway and

Whippany Rivers) drain the eastern section of

the county. The Passaic River flows eastward

from Morris County and discharges to Newark

Bay. The tributaries of the Raritan River in

Morris County (the Lamington, North Branch

Raritan, and South Branch Raritan Rivers) drain

the south-western portion of the county. The

Raritan River flows southward from Morris


County and discharges to Raritan Bay. The

Musconetcong River, a tributary of the Dela

ware River, drains the western portion of the

county. The Musconetcong River flows south

westward from Morris County and dischargesinto the Delaware River, which discharges into

Delaware Bay.

1.4.2 Surface Water Supply Sources

The Major surface water sources in Morris

County are described below.

() The Taylortown Reservoir is located in

Kinnelon and Montville, and provides

water to the Town of Boonton Water

Department. This reservoir has a maxi

mum yield of 1.0 million gallons per day

(MGD) and a safe yield of 0.7 MGD.

The average withdrawal rate for 1989 and

1990 was 0.6 MGD.

() The Kakeout Reservoir is located in Kin

nelon, and provides water to the Butler

Water Company. The Butler Water

Company has a diversion permit to

withdraw a maximum of 124 million

gallons per month (4.1 MGD), the safe

yield determined for the reservoir. The

average withdrawal rate for 1989 and1990 was 0.7 MGD.

() The Clyde Potts Reservoir is located in

Mendham Township, and provides water

to the Southeast Morris County MUA.

SMCUA has a diversion permit to with

draw a maximum of 4.0 MGD. This

reservoir has a safe yield of 2.0 MGD.

The average withdrawal rate for 1989

was approximately 2.0 MGD.

() The Split Rock and Boonton (Jersey City)

Reservoirs constitute a reservoir systemthat provides water to the Jersey City

Water Department. The Split Rock

Reservoir is located in Rockaway Town

ship and the Boonton Reservoir is located

in Parsippany-Troy Hills Township. The

safe yield of this reservoir system is 62



MGD. The average withdrawal rate from

the Boonton Reservoir between 1986 and

1989 was 49.6 MGD. Jersey City has

recently agreed to make up to 7.5 MGD

oftreated surface water supply fromBoonton Reservoir available to Morris

CountyMUA.

1-21

6J The Charlotteburg Reservoir in Rocka

way Township and the Oak Ridge Res

ervoir in Jefferson Township provide

water to the City ofNewark Water De

partment. These two reservoirs are partof a system of reservoirs with a combined

safe yield of 55 MGD.




CHAPTER TWO

Existing Water Supply Facilities

As of 1990, 78 public community systems1

supplied water within Morris County which,

along with Sussex County, has the largest

number of such systems in New Jersey. Based

on a questionnaire distributed to each known

purveyor and reports generated by the NJDEPE,

1Assessing New Jersey's Drinking Water Quality; A

Status Report on the Implementation of the 1984

Amendments to the New Jersey Safe Drinking Water

Act (A-280): (1984- 1990), Bono, Krietzman, and

McGeorge, NJDEPE, August 1992

2-1

information was obtained on 4 7 water systems2•

The location of he principal piping components

of the water distribution system, the system

wells, and storage facilities are mapped in

Figure 2-1.

2Information was not available and/or could not be

obtained for the remaining 31 water systems. Most

of these systems are extremely small and serve trailer

parks, individual establishments, or schools. Becauseof their size, the water systems are not required to

obtain a water allocation permit from the NJDEPE

and must only report to the Bureau of Safe Drinking ·

Water. The diversion of water by these systems

constitute a very small percentage of the total

diversion of supplies in the county.

Morris CountyWater

Supply Element



The individual water systems range from the

Southeast Morris County Municipal Utilities

Authority (SMCMUA) which serves 20,790

dwellings in six municipalities to the Mountain

Shores Water Company which serves 29dwellings in a small section of Jefferson

Township. Morris County has an unusually

large number of small community systems

supplying water within its area. Of the 4 7

purveyors surveyed, 18 served less than 3,300

people; of these 18 systems, 13 served less than

500 people. Information obtained from each of

the public community systems relating to their

existing facilities is presented in Appendix B.

Public community systems serve approxi

mately 82% of the total housing units in Morris

County. Municipalities in the eastern portion of

the county have more extensive infrastructure

systems, while the less densely developed

western area of the county has a higher percent

age of individual on-site wells. While every

municipality has a public system located within

its jurisdiction, the extent and type of service

provided varies from town to town. The follow

ing sections provide a description of the water

supply sources as well as an overview of the

public community water systems serving each of

the municipalitiesin

Morris County. Whereapplicable, a description of provisions within

municipal master plans and/or development

regulations which were designed to protect

potable water resources, is also included in each

narrative.

2.1 BOONTON TOWN

The Town ofBoonton is

solely served by its own

water department. The

town receives its watersupply from both ground

water and surface water

sources: a wellfield located

in Boonton Township and a reservoir located in

both Kinnelon and Montville.


According to the Town of Boonton Water

Department, there were 2,638 residential con

nections and 20 industrial connections (small

portions of Boonton Township and Montville

included) in 1991. Boonton Town has 15 unitsserved by on-site wells.

In 1981, when Morris County conducted its

previous water supply master plan update,

Boonton Town's sources of water supply were

deemed inadequate for its future demand. Since

then, a new well has been added to the four

wells within the town's wellfield in Boonton

Township, assuring adequate supply to meet

projected year 2010 demands.

2.2 BOONTON TOWNSHIP

The predominant

source of water in

Boonton Township is the

individual on-site well,

with over 80% of he total

dwelling units using this

type of supply according

to the 1990 Census. Most of the on-site well

users are located in the northern portion of the

township. Presently, there are no plans to

extend water service into this area.The remaining housing units are connected

to a public water supply system. The Town of

Boonton provides most of the public supply

connections. Service is provided to an area

along Boonton Avenue extending out of the

Town of Boonton to Montville and an area

along the main water transmission line from the

Town of Boonton wellfield almost to the

Denville municipal line. Denville Township

provides water service to two neighborhoods

west of he Boonton wellfields. Mountain Lakes

is the third public water supply system whichprovides limited water service in the township

along their common border. Finally, Boonton

Township services an area referred to as "Water

District #1" which extends from the Boonton

Town border along Powerville Road. The



Existing Water Supply

Facilities and Served Areas

Served Areas 0 Public Supply Wells

Surface Water Supplies • Water Storage Facilities

LakeStockholm

.Jefferson ,.......4

J E F F E R S 0 N

N

0

0

Mains over 12 inches

Mains 10 and 12 inches

Key Mains less than 10 inches

0

1

West M

.JerseyWater

WAS HI NG TO N

R T H

2 3 4 5 Miles

2 3 4 5 6 7 Kilometers


" Mt.Olive

Vil lages

C H E S T

T W P

SOURCES:

Political Boundaries and Water Facilities: MCPB, 1992.

Served areas de lineated by CDM and MCPB staff.

Map Prepared By:

Camp Dresser & McKee


ROCKAWAY TWP

Rockaway Twp

, AR DI NG

\ TheLakeshoreCompany

re : --- EastHanover


County of Morris, New Jer


Figure 2-1 : Existing Water Sup

Facilities and Serve



township purchases bulk water from the Town

of Boonton.

Since the mid 1970s, several studies of the

Rockaway River valley have been done by area

municipalities to determine and define theaquifer systems. Boonton Township has incor

porated information from these studies into both

their master plan and land use ordinance. The

1988 re-examination report recommends that

township planning should take water quality into

consideration and that "protection of the

extensive ground water aquifer in the valley area

is vital to the future health of the community. "

Within the land use ordinance, identified aquifer

recharge areas are considered environmentally

sensitive areas where the maximum permitted

residential density is one dwelling unit per 3.5acres.

2.3 BUTLER BOROUGH

Most of Butler is served

by the Butler Water

Company, which provides

water to 2,632 dwellings,

according to the 1990

Census. The borough is the

only municipality in Morris

County that is solely dependent on a surface

water supply, the Kakeout Reservoir located in

Kinnelon. According to the water company, the

reservoir is believed to be adequate to meet


A small portion of the borough's residents,

approximately 118 dwellings or four percent of

the total housing units, rely on individual wells.

There are no known incidents of ground water

contamination.

2-3

2.4 CHATHAM BOROUGH

The entire borough is

served by the Chatham

Water Department, whichserves 2, 712 residential

connections, 168

commercial connections

and one public connection

as of October 1991. The water department

obtains its water supply from three public wells

within Chatham Borough. The wells are

situated north of Main Street (Route 124) and

off of Van Doran Avenue. According to the

Chatham Water Department, the borough's three

wells are adequate to meet both present and


According to the 1990 Census, Chatham

Borough is the only municipality in the county

with no individual on-site wells. All 3,154

housing units are served by public water and

sewer systems.

In order to conserve ground water resources,

borough residents practice voluntary odd-even

day outside use ofwater. Chatham Borough is

currently working to incorporate a ground water

protection ordinance into the borough's regula

tions. The borough has also applied for grantfrom the New Jersey Wellhead Protection

Program.

2.5 CHATHAM TOWNSHIP

An overwhelming

majority of Chatham

Township's housing units

(98% or 3,659 units) are

served by public water

systems, according to the

1990 Census. Publicwater service extends almost throughout

Chatham Township except for the area

constituting the Great Swamp National Wildlife

Refuge.




Chatham Township's potable water is almost

totally supplied by the NJ-American Water

Company with 2,656 residential customers and

119 commercial customers. The company's

sources ofwater supply are all located outside ofthe township. Approximately 21 customers on

Loantaka Way and Loantaka Lane are supplied

by SMCMUA, whose sources of water are also

located outside the township.

A number of homes rely on individual wells

for their water supply. The 1990 Census

estimates that 70 housing units are served by

individual on-site wells. Some of these wells

are on sections of River Road by the Passaic

River and near the Mountainview Road area

north of the Chatham Township Municipal

Building. The residents not served by public

water in the Mountainview Road area are

currently sewered. The sections of River Road

not served by public water, however, are not

currently sewered. According to Chatham

Township's proposed March 1991 Wastewater

Management Plan, currently under review by

NJDEPE, the River Road areas are eligible to

receive sewer service in the future.

2.6 CHESTER BOROUGH

The Borough of

Chester is solely served by

the Chester Water Depart

ment, which has 100

residential and 12

commercial customers in

the municipality. The

system currently consists of two active wells

and two new, but still inactive, wells. The

system serves the area between Hillside Avenue

and Route 206 to Main Street, the Shadow

Woods development where one active well is

located, and the Olde Chester Towne devel

opment where the two new wells area located.

According to the 1990 Census, Chester Borough

has 338 housing units served by on-site wells.


Although the supply and storage capacity of

water has been increased, there is concern that

an increase in demand for water, especially by

new development, cannot be met by the existing

system. Chester Borough is now before theNJDEPE to activate the two wells at the Olde

Chester Towne development. At this time, the

borough is totally dependent on its own ground

water supplies; there are no interconnections

with other systems. The underlying geology is

very unpredictable for drilling wells with a

reasonable yield. Two wells were necessary at

the Olde Chester Towne development because

the yield of the first well drilled was too low.

A report entitled The Hydrogeologic Assess-

ment or Chester Borough, New Jersey prepared

by Geraghty & Miller, Inc., was incorporated

into the borough's 1986 Master Plan. The

purpose of the assessment was to determine if

the minimum 1/2 acre lot size required in two

residential zones was adequate for maintaining

ground water quality and supply. Recharge and

nitrate dilution were used as the determining

factors. Based on available studies and field

investigations, the consultant recommended a

minimum residential lot size of 1.75 acres due to

the recharge and assimilative capacity of the

underlying Precambrian bedrock.The borough's land development regulations

contain provisions for the conservation and

protection of ground water. As an incentive to

conserve and recharge ground water supplies, a

proposed residential development can receive a

density bonus if measures such as low flow or

non-aqueous toilets, flow restricted showers,

swales, and on-site retention basins are incor

porated into the project. By utilizing these

measures, a developer can halve the minimum

conventional lot size. Incorporation of ground

water protection measures are also required inorder to obtain the density bonus. If community

or individual water systems are used, monitoring

wells are required to measure the level and

quality of the ground water supply. If sewage

effluent is to be used as ground water recharge,



at least 80% of the nitrates must be removed

from the effluent prior to recharge.

2. 7 CHESTER TOWNSHIP

Only two very small

portions of Chester

Township are served by

public water systems. The

Randolph Township MUA

provides water to ten resi

dential customers on Selma

Boulevard located in the

north-east section of the township adjacent to

the Randolph border. The Elizabethtown Water

Company serves 19 residential customers along

Old Chester Gladstone Road from the PeapackGladstone boundary to Fox Chase Road.

Presently, the source, treatment, and storage of

water provided by the two purveyors are all

located outside of the township.

Formerly, the Elizabethtown Water Compa

ny customers had been served by the Peapack

Gladstone Water Department which had as its

source a reservoir located in the township. The

reservoir and the surrounding property was pur

chased by Chester Township in 1982 and is now

known as Tiger Brook Park.The majority of the residences and all busi

nesses rely on individual on-site wells. Ac

cording to the 1990 Census, Chester Township

has 1,911 housing units served by on-site wells.

All residences and businesses, with the excep

tion ofWelkind Hospital, also rely on individual

on-site septic systems. The Chester Township

master plan notes that there have been very few

problems with the dependency on private wells

because of the low density of development and

the general availability of ground water

resources in the developed areas.

The master plan also contains recommenda

tions to protect the ground water supply. To

maintain adequate recharge, the master plan

recommends a two acre minimum lot size for

areas underlain by granitic crystalline rock

2-5

aquifers and a one acre minimum lot size for

areas underlain by carbonate rock and glacial

drift aquifers.

Because of the dependency on ground water,

the township is concerned with any existing orpotential threats to the quality and supply of its

source. Portions of Chester Township have

already been adversely impacted by ground

water contamination. The 65 acre Combe Fill

South Landfill, located in the western portion of

the township and extending into Washington

Township, is listed as a federal Superfund site.

Approximately 130 residences and businesses

are located in the affected area and cannot use

their wells. Studies are currently underway to

assess the feasibility ofobtaining water from the

Washington Township Municipal UtilitiesAuthority.

Another source of contamination is the Sim

monds Precision site located adjacent to the

Black River Wildlife Management Area.

Pollutants including perchloroethylene (PCE)

and trichloroethylene (TCE) were found in the

company's lagoon and well. The NJDEPE

required the well to be closed and recommended

that residents in the affected area not to consume

their well water.

Another concern listed in the township'smaster plan is the Morris County Municipal

Utilities Authority's (MCMUA) Alamatong

Wellfield, a small portion of which · s located

just north of the Black River Wildlife

Management Area. The Black River (a.k.a .

Lamington River) is currently being considered

for inclusion in the New Jersey Wild and Scenic

Rivers System. If included in the system, water

quality and flow standards would be established

which would regulate the amount of ground

water withdrawn from the headwaters of the

river.




2.8 DENVILLE TOWNSHIP

Denville Township's

public water supply is

provided primarily by theDenville Township Water

Department. Small

portions of the township

receive their supply from

the water departments and municipal utility

authorities of neighboring municipalities

including Rockaway Borough, Randolph

Township, and Parsippany-Troy Hills. In 1981,

the Denville Township Water Department had a

total of 4,352 connections of which 3,998 were

residential (including those living in areas

outside Denville). By 1989, the total increasedto 4,953 with 4,513 residential connections.

According to the 1990 Census, only 260 housing

units rely on on-site wells.

Water supply is obtained from five wells

located in the glacial moraine which is part of a

federally designated sole source aquifer (see pg.

1-1 ). Three wells are located near the

Rockaway River northwest of the central

business district. One abandoned and two active

wells are located in adjacent Randolph

Township also near the Rockaway River. Thereis a concern that the supply may not be adequate

to meet the year 2010 demand according to the

response to the County's water supply question

naire.

In addition to Denville's wells, two back-up

wells owned by Mountain Lakes are located

along the Rockaway River in the Valley section

of the township.

Ground water contamination in the form of

volatile organic compounds was found in one of

the wells locatedin

Randolph Township.An

airstripper was installed to remove the pollutants.

The potential flow of ground water contami

nation along the northeastern border of Denville

with Rockaway Township is being observed

through the use of monitoring wells installed in

the township.


In order to protect the sole source aquifer

from adverse development impacts, an "Aquifer

Sensitive Area Overlay Zone District" (ASA)

was created and included in Denville's develop

ment regulations. The provisions require allnew residential development, as a condition of

approval, to connect to a central sewer system.

If sewers are not available, the minimum lot size

of three acres per dwelling unit is required. All

non-residential uses are also required to connect

to a sewer system. However, where sewers may

not be available, a non-residential use may

utilize a closed holding tank disposal system

approved by the NJDEPE.

2.9 DOVER TOWN

Almost all of Dover is

served by the Dover Water

Commission with 5,245

residential, 69 industrial,

693 commercial and 61

public connections. The

Commission has all four of

its wells situated within Dover: three wells are

located in the northwest section adjacent to the

Rockaway River and the fourth well is located

off of Hooey Street in the eastern section of the

town. The Hooey Street well is presently not in

use because of volatile organic contamination.

An air stripper is being installed to remove the

contamination so that the well can be placed

back into production. The source of the

contamination is not known.

According to the 1990 Census, only 23 hous

ing units rely on individual on-site wells. The

location of these units are not known based on

the availability of public water supply through

out the town. The town is also almost com

pletely sewered. Because Dover is close tobeing fully developed, sufficient water should

be available to meet future demands according

to the Water Commission sources.

Dover's development regulations contain a

few provisions related to the protection of the



ground water supply. Within the zoning ordi

nance, a performance standard requires that "No

light manufacturing use shall be permitted

which will endanger the water supply system in

any manner" within a light industrial zone. In

addition, in 1982 because of the Rockaway

Valley Regional Sewerage Authority sewer

hook-up ban, an ordinance was adopted which

required a minimum lot size of 10,000 square

feet for newly created lots which were to be

served by a septic system.

2.10 EAST HANOVER TOWNSHIP

Almost the entire

township is served by the

East Hanover WaterDepartment. The area

south of the Morristown &

Erie Railroad is com

pletely served, while the

area north of he railroad contains residential on

site well users scattered throughout. The East

Hanover Water Department indicates that as of

November 1, 1991, 2,626 residential customers

were connected to its water lines, as well as 256

industrial and commercial users and 18 public

connections. The 1990 Census estimates that

approximately 440 dwellings, less than 15% of

the total number, util ize on-site wells.

The township water department obtains its

water from three wells located within the

township: two are on Melanie Lane near Route

10 and Ridgedale A venue while the other is at

Homestead A venue and Wildwood A venue. In

1984, one ofthe township's wells on Melanie

Lane was discovered to be contaminated with

volatile organic compounds. Subsequently,

contamination was also found in 80 private

wells. Over31

industries have been cited asallegedly contributing to the widespread

contamination of the ground water in the

township.

An air stripper has been installed to remove

the volatile organic compounds from the town-

2-7

ship well and because of the contamination,

many homes originally on individual wells

hooked into the township's system. Because the

existing public water system was not adequate

to accommodate all additional demands,

ordinances placing moratoriums on all develop

ment applications and building permits were

adopted by the East Hanover Township Com

mittee in December 1988. The New Jersey

Council on Affordable Housing had also placed

the township under a Scarce Resource Restraint

in order to reserve water for affordable housing

developments.

According to the East Hanover Water

Department, normal demands of the township

can currently be met but the sources of supply

may become inadequate in meeting peak demands during the summer months. The current

available supply may also not be able to ac-

commodate future demands. In order to

supplement the ex1stmg supply, an

interconnection with the WaterSource Project

was made at Melanie Lane.

2.11 FLORHAM PARK BOROUGH

Almost all of the

borough is connected to

public water systems. A

total of 3,013 residential

dwellings, over 99% of

the total housing units,

and 171 industrial/

commercial customers in the borough are served

by public water systems. The majority of

connections are served by the Florham Park

Water Department with 2,913 residential

customers and 142 industrial and commercial

customers, as of January 1992. There are three

residential areas where water service is provided

by other public water systems. A Ward Place

condominium development and the Sammis

office development of fPark Avenue are served

by the NJ-American Water Company. Thirty

one residential customers west of Park A venue




and north of Punch Bowl Road are connected to

SMCMUA, while nine users on Carrigan Lane

and Burnet Road are served by the Madison

Water Department.

All of the purveyors serving Florham Parkexcept the NJ-American Water Company, use

ground water as their source of water supply.

The three wells operated by the Florham Park

Water Department are located near Elm Street

south of Columbia Turnpike. NJ-American

Water Company had a well (retired in 1992 and

sealed) located east of Park Ave. and south of

Columbia Turnpike. SMCMUA's and Madi

son's sources are all located outside of the

borough.

A number of individual well users are

scattered throughout the community, notably on

Brooklake Road, Passaic Road, and Summit

Road. The 1990 Census estimates that the bor

ough has 39 dwellings served by on-site wells.

Some of the non-residential well users are the

Hamilton Park complex, the College of St.

Elizabeth and Fairleigh Dickinson University.

According to the Florham Park Water

Department, as of January 1992, there is no

known ground water contamination in the

borough. The Department also believes that its

sources of supply are adequate to meet bothpresent and projected year 2010 demands. NJ

American Water Company's use of a temporary

well off of Park Avenue was discontinued when

the interconnection was made with its system in

Chatham Township as part of its WaterSource

Project.

2.12 HANOVER TOWNSHIP

Nearly all of Hanover

Townshipis

served bypublic water obtained

from SMCMUA. Accord

ing to SMCMUA, as of

summer 1992, there were

approximately 4,163

connections in Hanover served by the Authority


(including residential, non-residential and fire

hydrant connections). According to the 1990

Census, 34 units still use on-site wells.

Five of the thirteen wells operated by

SMCMUA are located within Hanover, four of

which draw from the Buried Valley Aquifer.

Three wells are located on the southern border

of the township near the Morristown Airport,

and two others are near the intersection ofl-287

and Route 10 . In terms of water quality, four of

the five wells operated by SMCMUA in the

township showed evidence of volatile organic

chemicals during routine sampling in September

1990 according to the Water System Master

Plan of he SMCMUA, March 1991. The results

of recent tests have shown no signs of

contamination.

The township's Land Use Element of the

Master Plan (1980) recognizes that Hanover

Township lies over an important part of the

aquifer recharge zone for the Buried Valley

Aquifer System. The plan recommends that the

township design its planning program to

minimize any adverse impact of development

that would in any way contaminate the aquifer

through the recharge zone.

2.13 HARDING TOWNSHIP

Over two-thirds of

Harding Township

residents use individual

on-site wells for their

water supply (998 of

1,460 total housing units)

while the remaining resi

dents are served by public water systems,

according to the 1990 Census. Public water is

provided within the township by SMCMUA, the

NJ-American Water Company, and a small community system, the Lakeshore Company.

SMCMUA, the largest purveyor in the

township, serves an area along Sand Spring

Road, including the Harding Green complex,

and Spring Valley Road with a total of approx-



imately 275 housing units . One of the wells

operated by SMCMUA, the Sand Spring Well,

is situated within Harding Township at the

intersection of I-287 and Sand Spring Road.

The NJ-American Water Company, one of thelargest purveyors in the state, serves only 21

housing units on Spencer Place, Douglas Road

and Spring Valley Road near the Chatham

Township border.NJ-Arnerican Water Company

also serves four commercial customers in

Harding Township.

The Lakeshore Company serves 95 housing

units around Mt. Kemble Lake, a private resi

dential community. The company's water

supply consists of three wells at the northern end

ofthe lake.

Almost all of the township relies on indi

vidual on-site sewage disposal systems. Only a

small fringe area of the township at the northern

end of Route 202 is sewered.

The 1984 Harding Township Master Plan

recognizes, as part of its goals and policies, that

due to its unique geographic location and

topographic features, the township has a

responsibility in protecting aquifer recharge

through careful regulation of on-site septic

disposal system and wells to prevent ground and

surface water pollution and depletion of groundwater supplies. The township also desires to

continue a low density pattern of development

as a means to maintain ground water quantity

and quality.

2.14 JEFFERSON TOWNSHIP

According to the US

Census, over half, or 3,162 ,

of the total housing units in

Jefferson Township rely on

on-site wells or other

individual sources for

potable water. The

remainder are served by either the Jefferson

Township Department of Municipal Utilities

(DMU) or one of a number of small private

2-9

systems. The Jefferson Township DMU has

acquired several of these smaller systems and

now is the major water purveyor in the

municipality with approximately 2,565 connec

tions.The smaller systems were originally created

to serve individual developments some of which

were built as seasonal homes. These systems, as

well as the Jefferson Township DMU's service

areas, are dispersed throughout the municipality.

Many of the individual service areas, both

township and privately-served, have inadequate

supply sources and are not interconnected with

other systems.

To address these problems, the Jefferson

Township DMU developed a Water Supply

Master Plan in 1991. The plan recommends and

determines the priority of projects which are

necessary to bring the existing systems up to

standard and to insure adequate water supply

and service in the future.

All purveyors in Jefferson Township are de

pendent on ground water. Because of he higher

elevations and underlying geology, the yields of

wells within the township are unpredictable and

are generally lower than other locations in the

county. In the 1991 Jefferson Township Master

Plan, the importance of protecting the groundwater resources of the township is a critical

concern. Preserving ground water recharge and

protecting aquifer recharge areas are stated in

the goals of the master plan. The plan also

recommends that areas ofdirect aquifer recharge

be taken into consideration in determining

development suitability, although these areas do

not necessarily pose a development constraint.

Jefferson Township has also integrated

performance standards for ground water quality

into the municipality's development regulations.

An applicant is required to identify and quantify

"any existing or proposed source of pollution to

the ground- or surface water of Jefferson Town

ship .." and must calculate density based on the

nitrate-nitrogen loading capacity of the ground

water in a particular basin or sub-basin. Within




the R-3 residential district the lot size is depen

dent on the availability of community water and

sewer. Ifboth water and sewer are available, the

minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet,

otherwise the minimum lot size is 30,000 squarefeet.

While township residents and businesses are

solely dependent on ground water, substantial

landholdings of Jersey City's and Newark's

surface water supply are situated within Jeffer

son. Approximately 4,100 acres of Newark's

Pequannock Watershed, including Oak Ridge

Reservoir, are located in the northern portion of

the township, and 700 acres encompassing

Jersey City's proposed Longwood Reservoir are

located in the central portion. The 1991 master

plan recommends that the density of the

residential zoning of these landholdings be

changed from one housing unit per acre to one

unit per five acres which would recognize the

environmental sensitivity of this area.

2.15 KINNELON BOROUGH

Approximately 60% of

the total dwellings in

Kinnelon Borough rely on

individual wells forpotable water. Most of

these residences are

located in the western half

of the municipality and include a large

development known as Smoke Rise. Additional

development in this large area of the borough

will most likely use on-site wells, since it is

located away from any existing or planned water

system.

Public water serving the remaining 40% of

total dwellingsin

the boroughis

provided by theKinnelon Borough Water Utility and the Fayson

Lakes Water Company. The Kinnelon Borough

Water Utility has approximately 210 water

customers including four schools and nine

commercial hook-ups. They are generally

located in the eastern portion of Kinnelon


adjacent to Butler. Kinnelon purchases bulk

water from the Butler Borough Water Depart

ment. The Fayson Lakes Water Company, a

private water company, serves a lake

community in the south-eastern portion of themunicipality with 794 residential and four

commercial and public customers.

The water sources of both purveyors are

completely located within Kinnelon. Butler's

sole water source is the Kakeout Reservoir,

located in the central portion ofKinnelon. Given

the reservoir's large excess capacity, future

public water needs of Kinnelon should be met.

Although the supply is adequate in meeting

existing needs, higher withdrawals could cause

some shortages during summer months.

Presently the two systems are not interconnect

ed.

2.16 LINCOLN PARK BOROUGH

Almost 95% of the

total dwellings in the

Borough of Lincoln Park

are served by a public

water system according to

the 1990 Census. Public

water is provided by theLincoln Park Water Department to the

developed eastern and southern portions of the

municipality with 3,355 residential, 85

commercial and 40 industrial connections. The

borough purchases bulk water from the Passaic

Valley Water Commission and also from Pe

quannock Township; the sources of both

purveyors are located outside of the borough.

The only water department well within the

borough was discontinued in 1985.

According to the 1990 Census, Lincoln Park

has 220 housing units still being served by on

site wells. These dwellings are most likely

located in the western portion of the borough

where public water is not available.



2.17 LONG HILL TOWNSHIP

As of 1990, over 92%

of the dwellings (2,330

residential connections) inLong Hill Township are


provided solely by the NJ

American Water Compa

ny. There are 142 commercial connections, as

well as 15 industrial connections which are also

served by the purveyor. None ofNJ-American

Water Company's wells are located within the

township .

The remaining residences, consisting of 229

housing units, in Long Hill Township rely on

individual on-site wells for their water supply.The majority of these residents are situated in

the Valley Road corridor areas of the commu

nities of Stirling and Gillette, with approxi

mately 25 others in the White Bridge Road and

New Vernon Road areas. The on-site well users

in the Stirling and Gillette areas are all

dwellings which are also connected to sewers.

The White Bridge Road and New Vernon Road

areas are not served by sewers.

2.18MADISON BOROUGH

The borough is served

by public water provided

by the Madison Water

Department serving

4,780 residential, 120

commercial and 12 public

connections. The water

department's five wells are all located north of

Route 124 in the borough. In addition, the 1990

Census estimates that 25 housing units in the

borough rely on private on-site wells as theirsources of potable water.

Due to the borough's developed status, and

that the wells are not used to their capacity, the

Water Department believes that its wells are

2-11

adequate to meet both present and projected

year 2010 demands.

2.19 MENDHAM BOROUGH

Until the sale of its

franchise to the NJ

American Water

Company in 1992, the

borough had operated its

own water supply system.

The borough decided to

sell its system because of stricter State require

ments and the rapid rise in the cost of water

fromMCMUA.

The system presently extends almost

throughout the entire municipality with most of

the service concentrated in the more intensely

developed areas just north and south of Main

Street (Route 24). In 1980, a total of 1,587

customers were served, while in 1990, the figure

rose to 1,978 customers, an increase of almost

25%. Most of the connections consist of

residential users, while the remainder are com

prised of 87 commercial and 5 public users. The

remaining housing units, which total 90, are

served by on-site wells, according to the 1990

Census. Approximately 85% of boroughresidents are also hooked into the borough's

sewage treatment system.

At the time of he update of the 1981 Morris

County Water Supply Element, Mendham's

water supply system consisted of two wells and

a reservoir. Since that time, the Combs Hollow

Reservoir has been abandoned and sold and re

placed by two new w ~ l l s . The borough also

receives water from MCMUA since the wells do

not produce sufficient water to meet existing as

well as future demands. In 1992, NJ-American

Water Company completed a 12 inchinterconnection from its main supply in

Bernardsville to meet daily demands.

According to the 1988 Mendham Borough Mas

ter Plan, 0.842 MGD will be required to meet

future average daily water demand while 1.256

Morris CountyWater

Supply Element



MGD will be needed to meet peak daily

demand.

2.20 MENDHAM TOWNSHIP

The majority of the

dwellings within the

township rely on individual

on-site wells. According to

the 1990 Census,

Mendham Township has

1,014 housing units, 60%

of the total, served by on-site wells, while 690

units are served by public water.

Five areas in the township are served by

public water provided by two outside purveyorsand SMCMUA. Three areas, with a combined

customer base of approximately 200

connections, are served by the NJ-American

Water Company. These areas include the

Ralston Hill development to the west, the Pitney

Farm and Drakewick at Mendham subdivisions

to the east, and developed areas along

Mountainside Road and Horizon Drive to the

north. The Randolph Township MUA serves 19

customers in the area of Mount Pleasant Road

adjacent to Randolph Township.

SMCMUA serves the developed portion of

the township extending from Morris Township

west along Route 24 and north to Washington

Valley Road. SMCMUA's only surface water

supply, Clyde Potts Reservoir, is located in the

northern portion of the township at the headwa

ters of the Whippany River and has a 1.87

square mile watershed.

There has been no reported incidence of

ground water contamination and, unless water

lines are extended, most future development will

be using on-site wells.


2.21 MINE HILL TOWNSHIP

According to the 1990

Census, 91 0 housing units

in Mine Hill, over 70% of

the total, are supplied by a

public or private company

water system. Public

water is supplied by the

township Water Department, which serves the

central and eastern developed areas of the

township, and by the Roxbury Water Company,

which serves an area in the western portion of

the township adjacent to Roxbury Township.

The township water department purchases all

its water from MCMUA. MCMUA's sources, as

well as the Roxbury Water Company's, are all

located outside of Mine Hill. The water

supplied by both purveyors is obtained from

wells.

The 1990 Census estimates that 363 dwel

lings are served by on-site wells. However, in

1990, the public water system was extended to

an area containing 75 residences located adja

cent to the Roxbury Township boundary north

ofRoute 46 because of individual well contam

ination. Because water service extends

throughout the developed portions of the municipality, future development will most likely be

served by public water.

The township regulates residential lot size

based on the availability of public water and

sewer. For example, single family develop

ments without water or sewer would be required

to have a minimum lot size of30,000 square feet

while a development with public water and

sewer would be only required to have a

minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. The

1988 Master Plan, however, recommends that

the minimum lot size requirement be increased

to 40,000 square feet for parcels without water

and sewer so that septic rehabilitation or a

secondary system can be accommodated in the

event of septic failure.



2.22 MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP


Census, approximately

55%of

MontvilleTownship is served by

public water. Two

purveyors, Montville

Township Municipal

Utilities Authority (MTMUA) and the Plausha

Park Water Company, provide water within the

township. MTMUA is the largest purveyor in

the township with 2,985 residential and 320

non-residential connections. MTMUA's service

area extends throughout most of the developed

areas ofMontville.

All three of MTMUA's wells are locatedwithin the township on or near Indian Lane.

MTMUA believes that its existing water supply

is more than adequate to serve present needs,

but additional wells will need to be added to

provide adequate future needs based on Mont

ville's growth potential. MTMUA's service area

was expanded in the late 1980s in the

Taylortown section due to ground water con

tamination.

In 1991, MTMUA took over a small water

system franchise serving the Lake ValhallaClub's area consisting of approximately 35

homes within the lake community. The Club's

water source was one well with no

interconnections to other systems. The main

tenance costs had become an increasing burden

for the Club.

The other purveyor serving the township is a

small community system. The Plausha Park

Water Company located in the Towaco section

of the township serves 57 residences. The

company relies on one well with no interconnec

tions. Plausha Park feels its source of supply is

adequate to meet present and projected year

201 0 demands, but it would like to have an

interconnection installed for additional

protection.

2-13

The remaining 45% of the dwellings within

Montville have individual on-site wells. These

dwellings are located in the less densely devel

oped northern portion of the township.

Montville has enacted measures to protect itswater supply resources. A Critical Water

Resources District was established within the

land use regulations to protect the Towaco

aquifer located in the northeastern portion of he

township. The regulations set stricter

development standards for land uses within the

prime aquifer area.

2.23 MORRIS TOWNSHIP

Almost all of Morris

Township is served by

public water. Over 96% of

dwellings within the

township receive their

water supply from

SMCMUA. Two of he 13

wells operated by SMCMUA are located in

Morris Township: one is near Woodland Ave

nue at the southeastern boundary of the town

ship, while the other is off West Hanover

Avenue near Morris Plains. The SMCMUA also

has an interconnection with the WaterSourceproject to provide water directly to the township.

According to the 1990 Census, the remaining

214 units are served by individual on-site wells.

These well users are generally located west of

Morristown.

Sections of Morris Township are located

over the Buried Valley Aquifer, which is the

major water source for communities in the

southeastern section of Morris County.

Morris CountyWater

Supply Element



2.24 MORRIS PLAINS BOROUGH

Practically the entire

borough is served by

public water fromSMCMUA. According

to the 1990 Census,

1,958 dwelling units in

the borough are served

by a public water system and only 7 units are

served by on-site wells.

Only one of the 13 wells operated by

SMCMUA is located in the borough: the Morris

Plains well is situated west of Route 202 close

to the Morris Township border.

2.25 MORRISTOWNTOWN

Almost all of the

residences in Morristown

(7,043 dwellings according

to the 1990 Census), are


provided by SMCMUA.

Two of SMCMUA's 13

wells are located in Morristown at the southern

end of the town. Only 18 dwelling units in

Morristown are estimated to be served by onsite wells.

Most of he town overlies the Central Passaic

Buried Valley Aquifer, a federally designated

Sole Source Aquifer, which is the main supply

of ground water to the southeastern portion of

the county.

2.26 MOUNTAIN LAKES BOROUGH

Practically all of the

dwellings in MountainLakes are served by

public water provided

primarily by the water

utility function of the

Mountain Lakes De

partment of Public Works (DPW). The DPW


serves 1,294 residential connections (including

83 customers outside of borough limits), 84

commercial connections and two public

connections.

The Denville Township Water Department,Boonton Water Department and the Parsippany

Troy Hills Water Department serve very small

sections of the borough which adjoin their

respective jurisdictions. About 51 residential

customers near the Lake Arrowhead area in the

southwestern comer of the borough are served

by the Denville Township Water Department.

Only two customers are served by the Boonton

Water Department and two others are served by

the Parsippany-Troy Hills Water Department.

The DPW obtains its water supply from four

wells, one being the major production well and

the others being back-up sources and an

emergency stand-by. The production well is

situated between Route 46 and the Erie

Lackawanna Railroad at the southern edge of he

borough. Another well is west of Mountain

Lake of fTower Hill Road. The remaining two

wells are located in Denville Township.

The borough is not aware of any significant

contamination in its public water system.

According to the DPW, the present sources of

supply are adequate to meet present demands,but they will be inadequate to meet projected

demands unless a more dependable back-up pro

duction well can be developed. Mountain Lakes

has recently made major improvements to its

distribution system, and is presently seeking a

site for the new well to provide a safe and

adequate water supply to meet projected year

2010 demands.

The borough's ordinances require that no

development shall cause any reduction in the

natural rate of ground water recharge, and that

no land can be developed unless a ground water

management plan has been submitted and

approved by the Planning Board.



2.27 MOUNT ARLINGTON BOROUGH


Census, 753 housing units

in the Boroughof

MountArlington, over 50% of the

total, get their potable

water from either a public

or private company's water

system. Residents receive water from three

different systems: the Roxbury Water

Department, the Mount Arlington Service

Company and the Mount Arlington Water

Company.

The only information available to the Morris

County Planning Board is for the Mount Ar

lington Service Company which provides waterto 102 homes, 162 garden apartments and a

school. The company derives its water from one

well located in the northern portion of the

borough.

The only information available regarding the

other purveyors is contained within the 1977

Mount Arlington Revised Master Plan. At that

time, the Roxbury Water Company served the

Shore Hills section of the borough; the Mt.

Arlington Service Company provided water to

the Mt. Arlington Apartments and the Knollsdevelopment; and the Mt. Arlington Water

Company served an approximately six-block

section of the village between Edgemere

Avenue, Prospect Street and Windmere Avenue.

The latest Master Plan Reexamination

(December 1983) states that there is "no prob

lem with ground water adequacy . . or at least the

short-term future." However, the New Jersey

Department of Environmental Protection found

contaminants in the Mt. Arlington Service Com

pany's supply. It was found to contain three

substances considered hazardous: tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene and trans- 1,

2-dichloroethylene. As of this writing, the

Morris County Planning Board is not aware of

the current status of his contamination problem.

2-15

2.28 MOUNT OLIVE TOWNSHIP

Mount Olive is served

by seven water purveyors

who supply water to overtwo-thirds of he dwellings

in the township (5,939

housing units according to

the 1990 Census). The

remaining third (2,590 units) are served by indi

vidual wells. In addition, there are two

purveyors who serve industrial developments.

The township currently operates eight water

systems with a combined total of 3,990

residential and 94 commercial connections.

Mount Olive has been undertaking a program of

upgrading the various elements of their watersystem, replacing substandard lines and

increasing storage capacity.

Three purveyors serving Mount Olive are

located outside of the township. The

Hackettstown MUA serves 85 connections in

the extreme southwest corner of the township,

the Netcong Water Department services 16

connections, and the Stanhope Water Depart

ment services the Dynapac industrial property

within the township.

Fourof

the remaining purveyors consistof

private community systems. The New Jersey

Vasa Homes Water System located in the Budd

Lake area currently has 74 residential users.

The West Jersey Water Service, Inc., also

located in the Budd Lake area, currently has 214

residential connections. Mount Olive Villages

Water Company, located between Budd Lake

and the Washington Township border, currently

provides service to 4,000 residents. Currently,

the Morris County Planning Board does not

have information on the Carlton Hill Water

System.The New Jersey Foreign Trade Zone Venture

supplies water for the needs of the tenants of the

International Trade Center located in the

northern portion of the township. The system

derives its water from one well which is ade-




quate for the current and future water supply

needs ofthe International Trade Center.

Mount Olive's Natural Resources Inventory

(1988) included a section whereby the New

Jersey Bureau of Geology recommended thatMount Olive (and other developing rural areas)

establish or at least consider minimum lot sizes

because a large part of the township depends on

private wells which are underlain almost entirely

by consolidated rock formations with only

secondary porosity and permeability.

The municipality has experienced problems

with several older Budd Lake area systems.

These problems include high nitrate levels and

a high content of iron. Two studies conducted

in the 1970s, as referenced in the township's

1986 Master Plan, concluded that the existing

water systems require major upgrades and the

Budd Lake area, in particular, needs a

considerable investment to be an effective water

system.

2.29 NETCONG BOROUGH

Almost all ofNetcong

is served by the borough's

Water Department. Water

is supplied to 779residential, 424 garden

apartment, 77 commercial

and four industrial

connections. The total population served is

approximately 4,500 people. According to the

1990 Census, 13 housing units, the remaining

dwellings, are served by on-site wells.

The system contains four wells of which

three are currently being utilized. Two wells are

located within the borough off of Flanders Road

while the other two are located in a wellfield off

of Route 206 in Roxbury and Mount Olive

Townships.

In 1990, the levels of the contaminants Tri

chloroethylene and Tetrachloroethylene detected

in one of the wells within the borough exceeded

NJDEPE standards. Further testing showed that


the amount of contamination by the two

pollutants had dropped below the maximum

permitted levels. Netcong was required by the

NJDEPE to be prepared to install an air stripper

in the event that the pollutant levels increaseabove State standards. The wellfield in Roxbury

and Mount Olive is located approximately one

half mile from the closed Combe Fill North

landfill which was placed on the Superfund list

in 1983. However, the low levels of volatile

organic compound contamination detected at the

site have not affected the borough's wells. Mea

sures to remedy the contamination at the landfill

include capping the landfill (completed) and

long term ground water monitoring3 .

The water department has stated that the

sources of supply are adequate to meet presentdemands but that a back-up reservoir will be

needed in the future.

2.30 PARSIPPANY-TROY HILLS

TOWNSHIP

Nearly all the residents

of Parsippany-Troy Hills

are served by public water

provided by the township

Water Department.According to the town

ship's March 1988 Water

Conservation Plan, there were over 12,480

residential, commercial, industrial and public

connections. The 1990 Census estimates that

the township has 169 housing units, less than

1% , served by individual on-site wells.

The township wells are located south of

Route 46 and north of Route 10 except for two

wells north of Route 46 in the Lake Hiawatha

area. A May 1990 Planning Report for the

township Department of Water Supply and

Distribution indicates that the water supply is

3NJDEPE, 1992 Site Remediation Program Site

Status Report, Fall1992, page 454



expected to be sufficient to satisfy the needs of

the township for the next 8 to 10 years.

Water supply sources for two major purvey

ors are located within Parsippany-Troy Hills.

The Boonton Reservoir, comprising approxi

mately 1,175 acres and owned by Jersey City, is

located in the north-eastern portion of the

township. SMCMUA has two of its wells locat

ed just south of Route 10 and east of Johnson

Road adjacent to the Hanover Township border.

2.31 PEQUANNOCK TOWNSHIP

The Pequannock

Township Water Depart

ment supplies water to

over 96% of the housingunits in the township.

The water department

serves 3,934 residential,

360 commercial, eight industrial and nine

municipal connections as of January 1993.

According to 1990 Census, the remaining 144

housing units rely on on-site wells as their

source of potable water.

The water department's main sources of

water are two wells located in the northern

portion of the township between West Parkwayand Mountain Avenue. Also, summer demands

require a water supplement supplied by the City

of Newark's system which traverses the

township. Pequannock has four connections

with the Newark system. Pequannock has made

numerous upgrades to its system since the early

1980s which has reduced the reliance on the

Newark water system. This self-sustenance

proved beneficial during the 1985 drought when

the township's water restrictions were lifted

thereby avoiding potential surcharges for

residents exceeding daily ration allotments.The 1990 Master Plan Reexamination

recommends a new policy and objective that

only low density future development should be

permitted and that potentially dangerous uses be

2-17

strictly regulated m order to protect aquifer

recharge areas.

2.32 RANDOLPH TOWNSHIP

The majority of

residences in Randolph

Township is served by

public water with

almost 78% of all hous

ing units connected to a

public system. The

Randolph Township Municipal Utility Authority

(RTMUA) provides water to over hal f of those

served by a water system. As of December

1992, RTMUA's system served 3,480 residential

connections, 81 commerciaVindustrial connections, and 8 schools. RTMUA obtains most of

its water from MCMUA through bulk purchase.

A small amount of water is also supplied by

SMCMUA and the Denville Township Water

Department.

In addition, the Dover Water Department

serves the northern portion of the township

bounded by the Rockaway River to the east,

Quaker Church Road to the south, and High

Avenue and Highview Terrace to the west. The

Dover system provides water to approximately

1,945 residential connections within Randolph;

the number of non-residential connections

within Randolph is unavailable.

Sections of the township not currently ser

viced by public water include portions ofCombs

Hollow, an area in the west bounded by Sussex

Turnpike, Park Avenue, Pleasant Hill Road and

the Black River, and an area in the east bounded

by Everdale Road, Mountainside and Gristmill

Roads. These areas are also dependent on

individual on-site septic systems.

Significant land holdings of two majorpurveyors within the county are situated within

Randolph. The Alamatong Wellfield,

MCMUA's primary water source, is located

adjacent to the Black River north of Pleasant

Hill Road. A portion of the SMCMUA's




property surrounding Clyde Potts Reservoir is

located adjacent to the southern boundary of the

township. Morristown was also an owner of

major watershed lands within the township, but

had sold the property once the CombsHollow/Mendham Reservoir had been

abandoned as a water source. This land has

been proposed for development.

An increase in the demand for water, from

.95 MGD in 1980 to 1.18 MGD 1990, is noted

in the 1992 Randolph Township Master Plan as

being caused by new development and drought

conditions. Because of the increased demand,

water use is restricted during severe dry spells.

Randolph has projected that the maximum

monthly daily average water systems demand

will be 3.40 MGD for the Year 2000. Themaster plan recommends that the Planning

Board "support MCMUA, Denville and Dover

in their attempts to increase water supply."

Concerning water quality, the master plan

recommends that the township "develop com

prehensive land and water resource protection

programs" and that the wellhead protection area

around the Alamatong wellfields be protected

from potential hazardous uses through zoning.

Randolph Township and several other munici

palities have formed the Black River Coalitionwhich is concerned about the protection ofwater

resources in the area. The Black River corridor,

which contains the Alamatong wellfields, is now

being studied by several organizations.

2.33 RivERDALE BOROUGH

Riverdale's water

system consists of a

municipal water system

and private wells (115

housing units according tothe 1990 Census). The

Riverdale Water

Department serves approximately 750 dwellings

which constitutes 86% of the total.


The source of this water is one well located

near Wedgewood Road. The water system

serves the developed area in the eastern half of

the municipality. Highland Avenue, Hartung

Avenue, and Matthews Avenue south ofDeGraw Avenue, are not served by the system.

The southern and westerly portions of the

borough are not served because of water

pressure limitations.

Given that Riverdale has limited growth

potential, the capacity of the existing system to

meet future needs is considered adequate.

However, the 1985 Master Plan Revision states

that there have been reports of discolored water

by residents and low water pressure by the fire

department. To overcome these problems, the

master plan recommended that the system belooped.

2.34 ROCKAWAY BOROUGH

The entire borough is

served with public water

by the Rockaway

Borough Water De-

partment. The water

supply system is

dependent on groundwater which is obtained from a wellfield in the

northern portion of the borough. This facility

also contains a major carbon water treatment

plant due to ground water contaminated with

volatile organic compounds. In the early 1980's,

high concentrations of tetra-chloroethylene were

detected in the borough's wells.

The borough is almost fully developed and is

fully sewered.



2.35 ROCKAWAY TOWNSHIP

Public water supply is

only provided in the

southern portion of the

township by the Rock

away Township Water

Department and two

other public purveyors.

The Rockaway Township Water Department

maintains the most extensive water system

which serves the White Meadow Lake commu

nity. The Dover Water Department provides

service to two areas: along Route 15 and the

area north of Route 46 up to Mt. Pleasant

A venue. The Rockaway Borough Water

Department services the area adjacent to theDover system south of Mt. Pleasant Avenue.

The Rockaway Township Water Department

does not provide water supply service beyond

the municipality's borders.

About 5,500 dwellings, 74% of the total, are

connected to the Rockaway Township system

and there is no figure available for the number

of dwellings served by the other public purveyor

systems. The 1990 Census figures estimate that

1,962 housing units in the township rely on on

site wells for their potable water.

The township's system consists of four wells

located in the Hibernia Flats area between Green

Pond Road and Beaver Brook; three within the

industrial area north ofRoute 80 and one on the

Hewlett-Packard property. Ground water

contamination has caused the municipality to

install air strippers on the wells to remove

volatile organic compounds. As a supplement to

its system, the Rockaway Township Water

Department obtains water through bulk purchase

of 200,000 GPD of water from Rockaway

Borough on an as -needed basis.Four new township Water Department wells

are proposed according to the 1992 Rockaway

Township Master Plan. Another well is to be

developed at Hewlett-Packard and three wells

are to be developed within the Highlands of

2-19

Morris project site. The 1992 master plan also

recommends an expansion of the water service

area to provide service coordinated with new

development and to provide public water to

developed areas which are experiencing water

problems due to insufficient supply or on-site

well contamination. One area identified in the

plan for proposed water service is the Lake

Telemark area, where septic systems are failing.

Two major reservoirs are also situated within

the township. The Splitrock Reservoir owned

by Jersey City and the Charlotteburg Reservoir

owned by the City ofNewark are located in the

northern portion of Rockaway Township.

Together, these landholdings comprise 3,700

acres, roughly 13% of total land area of the

municipality. None of the water supplied bythese reservoirs is provided for use by the

township.

Rockaway Township has enacted measures

to protect water supply resources within the

municipality. The Land Use and Development

of the Code of the Township of Rockaway

stipulates that no building or structure shall be

erected in any zone district of the township

within 1,500 feet of any public water supply

source unless adequate environmental safe

guards can be established. A Critical Water

Resources District (CWR) was created to protect

the aquifer recharge areas within the township

by establishing maximum impervious coverage

standards. In addition, the 1992 Rockaway

Township Master Plan recommends that the

minimum lot size for the residential zone

encompassing the watershed properties be

increased to 20 acres.




2.36 ROXBURY TOWNSHIP

The Township of

Roxbury is served by two

purveyors, the RoxburyWater Company, a

private company, and the

Roxbury Township

Water Department. The

Roxbury Water Company serves portions of the

Succasunna and Kenvil areas of the township

while the Roxbury Township Water Department

serves portions of the Port Morris, Landing and

Ledgewood areas. According to the 1990

Census, the remaining 2,3 58 housing units are

served by private on-site wells.

The Roxbury Water Company provides

service to 2,930 customers, of which a small

number are located in Mine Hill Township. The

company operates five wells which are all

located in the southern portion of the township.

The Roxbury Township Water Department

operates eleven wells which are all located in

the western portion of the township. A new

interconnection between the Roxbury Township

Water Department and MCMUA has been con

structed along Route 46 near the Roxbury and

Mine Hill border. Water service will soon beprovided for approximately 200 customers

between Berkshire Valley Road and Mine Hill

Township on both sides of Route 46. Also,

work is expected to commence on a $2.1 million

public water system expansion by the Water

Department for about 350 Kenvil properties

which have experienced nearly twenty years of

contaminated water.

According to the 1990 Master Plan Revision,

the Roxbury Township Water Department has

adequate water supplies to meet present and

future needs. However, the system is experiencing infrastructure problems in the Shore Hills

area of the township.


2.37 VICTORY GARDENS BOROUGH

Almost the entire

municipality is served by

the Dover WaterDepartment. However,

according to the 1990

Census, five housing

units are served by

private on-site wells. Victory Gardens is

completely developed with a 1990 population of

1,314 persons. The 1979 Master Plan states that

the "existing public water system's capacities

are adequate enough to fulfill the future potable

water needs of the borough."

2.38 WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP

Public water IS

supplied to six areas of

Washington Township.

Three different purveyors

supply and distribute

potable water to these

sections: the Washington

Township MUA (WTMUA), the Hackettstown

MUA (HMUA) and Cliffside Park Associates, a

property owners association. Although publicwater is provided to the more intensely devel

oped portions of the municipality (2,471 hous

ing units according to the 1990 Census), the re

mainder of the township, containing 48% of the

total housing units, is dependent on private on

site wells.

The Washington Township MUA provides

water to Long Valley, Parker Acres, and the

Schooley's Mountain plateau. The three areas

have a total of 1708 connections. The township

has numerous wells located throughout all of

these three subsystem areas. The Long Valleyservice area has an older system which is in

need ofupgrading.

The area adjacent to Hackettstown is served

by HMUA and includes East Avenue, Mine Hill

Road and Route 46 up to and including the A&P



Shopping Center. HMUA also provides public

water service to Newburgh Road, Esna Parkway,

Schooley's Mountain Road (Route 24) up to and

including the Hasting Square and Heath Village

areas. HMUA is interested in extending these

services to additional users in Washington

Township, provided that all municipal and

private agreements are satisfied.

HMUA has a total of 571 connections in

Washington Township. HMUA's primary

source of surface water is Mine Brook which ex-

tends into Mount Olive where two reservoirs are

located, the Upper Mine Hill and Lower Mine

Hill reservoirs. HMUA also owns a well and

storage reservoir (the Burd Reservoir) within

Washington Township which serves the Heath

Village property on Schooley's Mountain (nearReservoir Road). HMUA feels that additional

supplies are required to meet projected year

2010 demands because development is expected

to continue within its service area.

The sixth area to be served by a water system

is the Port Murray section in the south-western

most part of the township. This small

community of converted summer homes has

organized itself as Cliffside Park Associates

which maintains its own water supply system.

It serves 3 8 homes and one inn property from a

spring fed reservoir. As an older system

originally built in the early 1940s, it is in need

of upgrading. Although the association feels that

its current supply is adequate, no new service

connections are permitted. No filling of

swimming pools is allowed and temporary

restrictions on such uses as lawn watering or car

washing are put into effect when warranted by a

decrease in the water level of the reservoir. The

association is concerned with the impacts of

additional development in the area on recharge

to the reservoir.In order to protect water supply resources,

the township has enacted a Water Supply Code

regulating the location, construction, alteration,

use and supervision of individual and semi

public water supplies. In addition, the 1988

2-21

Master Plan suggests minimum lot sizes based

on drought yield and other constraints in the

Kittatinny Limestone, Precambrian and

Hardyston Quartzite Aquifer Zones.

The ground water in the southeastern portionof Washington Township, in the area of Parker

Road and East Valley Brook Road, has been

contaminated by volatile organic compounds.

The Combe Fill South Landfill and the Cleve

land Industrial site have been cited as the sourc

es of the pollution. The landfill, located off

Parker Road in Chester Township, is on the

federal Superfund list. Plans are underway to

extend service from the Washington Township

MUA into this area where individual wells have

tested positively for contamination.

2.39 WHARTON BOROUGH

The Wharton Water

Department

almost all

provides

of the

borough's residents with

water while the Dover

Water Department serves

the remainder. The

borough's Water Department has 1,790

connections comprised of 1,729 residential, 45

commercial, eight industrial and eight public

users. The 1990 Census estimates that 67

housing units, approximately three percent of

the total, rely on on-site wells for potable water.

Wharton's system includes three wells, two

ofwhich are located near West Central A venue

and the other near the Dover border and Green

Pond Brook. Two of these wells are not on line

due to contamination. An air stripper is being

installed to remove the contaminants from both

wells. There is concern that all wells are prone

to contamination due to their shallow depth.According to the borough Water Department,

water supply will be more than adequate to meet

projected year 2010 demands once the two wells

are operating again.




CHAPTER THREE

Existing and Future Water Demand

and Use TrendsThere are three major categories of demand

for water in Morris County: water supplied by

public water system purveyors, individual

residential wells, and individual industrial or

commercial wells.

3.1 EXISTING WATER DEMAND

3.1.1 Public Water Systems

Information has been obtained from 47

public water purveyors that provide wholesale

or retail water for residential use in Morris

County. An average per capita demand factor

was calculated for each purveyor by dividing the

3-1

average daily pumping rate by the number of

people served by each purveyor.

Data from the 1990 Census was used to

estimate the number of dwellings and the popu

lation served by each purveyor. The areas

served by each purveyor were delineated using

water system maps obtained from most of the

purveyors. This "served area" map was overlain

on a map of census block outlines. The data for

the individual census blocks within each purveyor's service area were totaled. Where the

entire census block was not served by a pur

veyor, the percentage of the block that was

served was estimated. This analysis produced a

count of the number of dwellings, the total




Table 3-1

Existing Water Demand by Purveyor

Morris County Only

1989-1990 Per Capita

Purveyor Dwellings Total Group Average Daily Demand Factor

Served Population Quarters Demand (MGD) (gpcd)

Arlington Hills Water Co. 0 0 0 0.000. 123.3.

Boonton Town Water Dept. 3,398 8,794 145 0.905 102.9

Boonton Twp. Water Distr. #1 77 338 126 0.042. 123.3.

Buller Water Dept. 2,842 7,663 18 0.637 83.1Chatham Boro. Water Dept. 3,154 8,007 28 1.022 127.6

Chester Boro. Water Dept. 108 267 0 0.046 170.4

Cliffside Park Water Co. 38 115 0 0.005 42.1

Denville Water Dept. 4,999 13,659 149 1.855 135.8

Dover Water Dept. 8,464 22,764 244 2.799 123

East Hanover Water Dept. 2,977 9,492 0 1.454 153.2

Elizabethtown Water Co. (ooc) 19 57 0 0.007. 123.3 .

Fayson Lakes Water Dept. 699 2,062 0 0.193 93.5

Florham Park Water Dept. 2,928 8,393 151 1.096 130.6Hackettstown MUA (ooc) 748 2,224 26 0.291 & 130.8 &

Jefferson Water Dept. 2,520 6,102 59 0.578 94.8

Kinnelon Water Dept. 144 425 0 0.048 112

Lake Shore Water Co. 95 237 0 0.034 142.6

Lake Stockholm Water Co. (ooc) 59 163 0 0.020. 123.3 .

Lake Valhalla Water 35 107 0 0.013. 123.3.

Lincoln Park Wa ter Dept. 3,914 10,700 644 1.159 112.1 +Madison Water Dept. 5,564 15,850 2,237 1.803 124.2+

Mendham Boro. Water Dept. 2,005 5,485 225 0.656 119.6

Mine Hill Water Dept. 702 1,839 0 0.138 74.8

Montville MUA 2,979 9,260 217 1.349 145.7

Morris County MUA 0 0 0 0.000# 0.0 #Mountain Shores Water Co. 29 66 0 0.008. 123.3.

MI. Arlington Service Co. 302 746 18 0.056 74.8

MI. Arlington Water Co. 49 121 0 0.01 82

MI. Lakes Wate r Dept. 1,240 3,755 0 0.345 91.8MI. Olive Twp. Water Dept. 4,132 10,322 52 0.883 85.6MI. Olive Villages 1,589 3,971 0 0.254 64Netcong Water Dept. 1,415 3,358 0 0.42 125.1NJ American Water Co. (occ) 6,319 16,599 118 1.729 104.1

NJ Vasa Homes 74 186 0 0.011 59.5

Parsippany Water Dept. 18,833 48,184 934 6.675 138.5

Pequannock Water Dept. 4,383 12,830 19 1.4 114.4Plausa Park Water Co. 54 156 0 0.015 94.3

Randolph Water Dept. 3,898 11 ,233 0 1.209 107.6Riverdale Water Dept. 748 2,035 0 0.203 99.6

Rockaway Boro Wate r Dept. 2,997 8,027 0 1.039 129.5

Rockaway Twp Water Dept. 3,982 10,732 0 1.056 98.4Roxbury Twp. Water Dept. 2,219 6,527 0 0.471 72.2

Roxbury Water Co. 2,646 8,083 67 0.63 78

SMCMUA 20,790 54,145 2,074 8.626 159.3

Washington Twp. MUA 1,525 4,641 0 0.49 105.5

West Jersey Water Co. 197 487 0 0.072 148.6

Wharton Water Dept. 2,120 5,394 17 0.797 147.8

Total Public Water Systems 128,009 345,601 7,588 42.614 123.3

(AVERAGE DEMAND)

Domestic Well Users 27,736 75,752 85 6.060@ 80.0@

Self-Supplied Industrial and Agricultural Use - over 100,000 gpm 7.446Self-Supplied Industrial and Agricultural Use - under 100,000 gpm 0.407

Small Public Community Systems 0.128

Total Existing Water Demand 155,745 421,353 7,673 56.655

Notes:MGD = Million gallons per day~ p c d = gallons per day per captta

= County Average Per Captta Demand used due to insufficient data.+ = Demand calulated using 50gpd/person for ~ r o u p ~ u a r t e r s& =Demand factor based on service area (2.1 0 MG serving 16,593 people); usage pro-rated.~ = P e r Captta Demand factor for Domest1c Well users assumed to be 80 gal\day.

= MCMUA does not serve any dwellings directly; tt whole sales water to other purveyors.ooc = Purveyor also provides water to out-of-county customers.

Source: NJDEPE, Bureau of Water Allocation




population, and the group quarters population

served by each purveyor, which is presented in

Table 3-1. Data from the 1990 Census regard

ing water supply (public or residential wells)

were used to check the census block counts

prepared by MCPB staff.

The quarterly diversion reports that each

purveyor files with NJDEPE were consulted to

determine the average daily demand served by

each public water system in 1989 and 1990. In

cases where data was unavailable or insufficient,

the average county per capita demand was used

to estimate the average daily system demand,

based on the number of people served. The

average daily demand for each purveyor is listed

in Table 3-1. The total average daily demand

for all of the public water systems in MorrisCounty in 1989 and 1990 was 42.6 million

gallons per day (MGD).

A per capita demand factor for each pur

veyor was calculated by dividing the average

daily use by the number of people served.

Where water systems served a significant num

ber of group quarters residents (more than 5

percent of he total population), the system-wide

demand factor was adjusted by assuming that

the residents in the group quarters use an aver

age of 50 gallons per person per day. The

county-wide average per capita demand wasbased on the total average daily demand exhib

ited throughout the county served by public

water systems, divided by the total population

served.

The results of the per capita demand analysis

for each public water system serving Morris

County are presented in Table 3-1. For purvey

ors with unavailable or insufficient water use

data, the county-wide average per capita demand

was used to estimate the system per capita

demand. The per capita demand factors range

from 42.1 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) for

the Cliffside Park Water Company to 170.4

gpcd for the Chester Borough Water Depart

ment. The county-wide average is 123.1 gpcd.

The per capita demand factors vary mostly

because industrial and commercial uses are also

often supplied by the public water system pur

veyors. Thus, the per capita water demand

factor includes not only individual indoor and

outdoor residential water use, but a shareof

anylocal commercial or industrial water use pro

vided by the public water system. Analysis

conducted for the 1982 Master Plan indicated

that approximately 28 percent of the public

community water demand could be attributed to

non-residential users.

3.1.2 Individual Domestic Wells

The number of residents in Morris County

using domestic wells as their water supply has

been estimated by subtracting the total population served by public water system purveyors

from the total population of Morris County.

Based on this analysis, approximately 75,752

Morris County residents (22 percent) relied on

domestic wells for their water supply in 1990.

A per capita water demand factor of 80 gpcd

was used to estimate the total volume of ground

water used by self-supplied residents, based on

a review of literature values and an analysis of

the smaller, primarily residential water systems

in Morris County. Assuming that the 75,752

self-supplied Morris County residents use on

site wells at a rate of about 80 gallons per capita

per day yields an average daily water demand of

6.06MGD.

Morris CountyWater

Supply Element



Table 3-2

Industrial/Agricultural and Small Public Community Water Demand

Water 1989-1990

Allocation Name Average Daily Notes

Permit No. Demand (MGD)

1/A Sytems using 100,000 GPO or more

2403P Picatinny Arsenal 1.679 ('91 average)

2321P Saxton Falls Sand & Gravel 0.764

2123P Hercules, Inc. 0.697

2117P Allied-Signal, Inc. 0.687

2206P Pfizer, Inc. - Consumer Products 0.627

2118P Sandoz, Inc. 0.513

2190P Welsh Farms, Inc. 0.407

2199P Givauden Corp. 0.3752200P Mt. Hope Rock Products 0.374

2195P Warner Lambert Co. 0.246

2196P Morristown Memorial Hospital 0.189

2339P Exxon Research & Engineering 0.173

2374P Orange Products, Inc. 0.112

2338P Flanders Valley Golf Course 0.111

2074P Howmet Turbine Components Corp. 0.110

2304P Noe Peirson Corp. 0.071

2078P Mennen Co. 0.068

2340P NJ American Water Co. 0.050 ('90-'91 ave.)

2333P Boonton Eletronics 0.038

2383P Sunset Valley Golf Course 0.0382342P Pinch Brook Golf Course 0.032

2021P Spring Brook Country Club 0.021

2058P Bowling Green Gol f Course 0.019

2294P Roxiticus Golf Club 0.018

2305P Fairmount Country Club 0.014

2025P Morris County Golf Club 0.014

2358P Mendham Golf and Tennis Club 0.000 (0.1 mg June '89)

7.446

1/A Systems using less than 100,000 GPO 0.407

Small Public Community Systems 0.128

1/A and Small Public Community Total 7.982

Source: NJDEPE, Bureau of Water Supply Planning and Policy

Morris CountyWater Supply Element 3-4



3.1.3 Self-Supplied Industrial and

Commercial Uses

Self-supplied industrial and commercial

water use represents a significant component of

the total water use in Morris County. Infor

mation is based on data provided by

NJDEPE/Water Supply Element/Bureau of

Water Supply Planning & Policy1• The

NJDEPE information indicates the average daily

withdrawal (between 1986 and 1988) for major

private water users (those which have individual

water allocation permits from NJDEPE). It also

contains information indicating the source of

water used (i.e., whether the water is diverted

from surface waters or pumped from ground

water. Approximately 7.9 MGD was used fornon-public uses (agricultural and industrial)

during 1986 through 1988. Approximately 15

percent of this total (1.2 MGD) was diverted

from surface water sources. The remaining 85

percent (6.7 MGD) was pumped from ground

water supplies. The major non-public users of

water identified by NJDEPE are listed in Table

3-2.

3.2 INCREASE IN WATER DEMAND

BETWEEN 1990 AND 2010

The population of Morris County has grown

steadily over the past decades, and Morris

County Planning Board (MCPB) analyses pro

ject a continuation of that growth over the next

twenty years. An increase in demand for water

is expected to accompany the increase in popu

lation. MCPB has developed population and

housing unit projections for the year 2010, using

past development trends, existing development

1Data obtained from a spreadsheet "Depletive WaterUse for Regional Water Resource Planning Areas(RWRPAs)" resulting from the Statewide Water

Supply Master Plan Revision Study . The spreadsheetwas named MASTERWW .WK3, and was dated 16-

July-1992, marked as "FINAL."

3-5

proposals, and results of a continuing municipal

zoning build-out analysis. The population pro

jections assume a decrease in household size.

The population projections developed by

MCPB have either been assigned to public watersystem purveyors, or were assumed to rely on

individual wells, depending on their location

and the availability ofpublic water supply. The

estimated general future location of new growth

forms the basis of the future demand analysis.

For the purposes of this analysis, it has been

assumed that the decrease in household size in

existing housing units is not likely to decrease

the existing demand in public water systems.

Small reductions in household size, at the level

of the individual home, are usually offset by

increasing presence of water-using appliancesand slight increases in plumbing leakage. The

most significant changes in water system de

mand will occur as a result of an increase or

decrease in the number of dwellings, and associ

ated local business activity, served by public

water systems.

3.2.1 Public Water Systems

To determine the increase in dwellings

served by public water systems, the projections

for the number of dwellings served by each

purveyor in 2010 were compared with the exist

ing number of dwellings served. The difference

represents the number of additional dwellings

(or the number of fewer dwellings, ifthere is a

projected decrease in served area for a purveyor)

served by each purveyor. The number of new

residents in these additional dwellings was

estimated by multiplying the number of new

dwellings by the average 201 0 household size in

that purveyor's served area.2 The per capita

demand factor (calculated from the existing

2The household size for each purveyor was calculatedby dividing the projected residential population

served (total minus group quarters served), by theprojected number of dwellings.




average daily demand and population served,

see above) was applied to the projected popula

tion growth to determine the average daily

demand associated with the new growth.

The water demand from public water systems is projected to increase by 4.27 MGD

above the current public water system demand,

an increase of 10 percent above the current de

mand. The results of the analysis of increased

public water system water use are presented in

Table 3-3. The water systems with the largest

projected increases in demand are SMCMUA,

Randolph Water Department, and Montville

MUA. The demand for supply from NJ

American Water Company is also projected to

increase significantly; however, the increase is

primarily due to the acquisition of MendhamBorough Water Department.

3.2.2 Individual Domestic Wells

The increase in water demand for individual

domestic well users was calculated in the same

way as for public water systems. The projected

increase in self-served dwellings was multiplied

by the future average household size to deter

mine the number ofpeople associated with these

new dwellings. Finally, the per capita demand

factor (80 gpcd) was applied to the increase in

population to arrive at the increase in demand

for water. Table 3-3 presents the results of this

analysis, and projects an increase of 0.83 MGD

in the demand exerted by domestic well users, a

14 percent increase over current estimates of use

by individual domestic wells.

3.2.3 Self-Supplied Industrial and

Commercial Uses

Based on an analysis ofmajor industrial andcommercial water users that are self-supplied in

Morris County, it has been assumed for pur

poses of water demand projections that no

increase in water usage is anticipated in this

category. Trends in current safe drinking water


and water quality testing requirements indicate

that most new business-related water uses will

likely require connection to public water sys

tems.

3.2.4 Total Future Water Demand

Table 3-4 presents the future water demand

by purveyor for public water systems, and for

domestic well users. These figures are calcu

lated by adding the increased water demand for

each purveyor presented in Table 3-3 to the

existing demands presented in Table 3-1.

Estimates of the approximate location of

future growth were prepared by MCPB for this

project in order to assess areas likely to require

additional future water supply. All growth hasbeen attributed to existing water systems or to

new domestic well supplies. Figure 3-1 indi

cates (in a very approximate manner) locations

of future growth in water demand and is indica

tive of the areas of increased demand on the

water resources ofMorris County.

3.3 CONCLUSION

The existing demand for water supply in

Morris Countyis

approximately 56.7 milliongallons per day (MGD). Approximately three

quarters of this demand is supplied by public

water systems. The remaining one-quarter is

supplied by either domestic residential wells or

self-supplied industrial or commercial users. In

the next twenty years, demand for water in

Morris County is projected to increase by almost

10 percent to approximately 61.8 MGD. Ap

proximately four-fifths of the increased water

demand will most likely be supplied by ex

pansion ofpublic water systems. The remaining

one-fifth will most likely be supplied by individual residential wells.



t'

Table 3-3

Increased Water Supply by Purveyor, 1990-2010

1990-2010 People in Per Capita 1990-2010Purveyor Change in Additional Demand Additional

Dwellings Dwellings Factor Water Demand

Served Served (GPCD) (MGD)

Arlington Hills Water Co . 588 1,430 123.3 0.176Boonton Town Water Dept. 129 308 102.9 0.032Boonton Twp. Water Distr. #1 0 0 123.3 0.000Buller Water Dept. 241 614 83.1 0.051Chatham Bore. Water Dept. 20 47 127.6 0.006Chester Bore. Water Dept. 62 145 170.4 0.025Cliffside Park Water Co . 0 0 42 .1 0.000Denville Water Dept. 278 710 135.8 0.096Dover Wate r Dept. 585 1,464 123.0 0.180East Hanover Water Dept. 861 2,593 153.2 0.397Elizabethtown Water Co. (ooc) 0 0 123.3 0.000Fayson Lakes Water Dept. 0 0 93.5 0.000Florham Park Water Dept. 149 395 130.6 0.052Hackettstown MUA (ooc) 468 1,332 130.8 0.174Jefferson Water Dept. 561 1,292 94.8 0.122Kinnelon Water Dept. 0 0 112.0 0.000

Lake Shore Water Co . 0 0 142.6 0.000Lake Stockholm Water Co . (ooc) 0 0 123.3 0.000Lake Valhalla Water 0 0 123.3 0.000Lincoln Park Water Dept. 578 1,402 112.1 0.157Madison Water Dept. 258 595 124.2 0.074Mendham Bore. Water Dept. (2 ,005) (5,485) 119.6 (0.656)Mine Hill Water Dept. 91 225 74.8 0.017Montville MUA 1,003 2,868 145.7 0.418Morris County MUA 0 0 0.0 0.000Mountain Shores Water Co. 0 0 123.3 0.000Mt. Arlington Service Co. 0 0 74.8 0.000Mt. Arlington Water Co . 0 0 82.0 0.000Mt. Lakes Water Dept. 58 165 91 .8 0.015MI. Olive Twp. Water Dept. 530 1,245 85.6 0.107Mt. Olive Villages 0 0 64.0 0.000Netcong Water Dept. 1 2 125.1 0.000NJ American Water Co . (occ) 2,391 5,878 104.1 0.612NJ Vasa Homes 0 0 59.5 0.000Parsippany Water Dept. 795 1,875 138.5 0.260Pequannock Water Dept. 800 2,187 114.4 0.250Plausa Park Water Co . 0 0 94.3 0.000Randolph Water Dept. 1,485 4,082 107.6 0.439Riverdale Water Dept. 5 13 99.6 0.001Rockaway Bore Water Dept. 198 500 129.5 0.065Rockaway Twp Water Dept. 829 2,097 98.4 0.206Roxbury Twp. Water Dept. 786 2,183 72.2 0.158Roxbury Water Co. 31 88 78.0 0.007SMCMUA 1,126 2,668 159.3 0.425Washington Twp. MUA 1,258 3,636 105.5 0.384West Jersey Water Co . 0 0 148.6 0.000Wharton Water Dept. 60 143 147.8 0.021

Total Public Water Systems 14,220 36,697 4.271

Domestic Well Users 4,011 10,422 80.0 0.834

Self-Supplied Industrial and Agricultural Use- over 100,000 gpm 0.000Self-Supplied Industrial and Agricultural Use - under 100,000 gpm 0.000Small Public Community Systems 0.000

Total Increase in Water Demand 18,231 47,119 5.105

Note: No net change in self-supplied industrial or agricultural use is projected although changes in demand

may occur at individual locations.


3-7 Morris County Water Supply Element



Table 3-4

Future (201 0) Water Demand by Purveyor

Morris County Only 1989-1990Purveyor Average

Dwellings Total Group Daily Demand

Served Population Quarters (MGD)

Arlington Hills Water Co. 588 1,430 0 0.176Boonton Town Water Dept. 3,527 8,571 145 0.936Boonton Twp. Water Distr. #1 77 320 126 0.042Bulter Water Dept. 3,083 7,877 18 0.688Chatham Boro. Water Dept. 3,174 7,565 28 1.028Chester Boro. Water Dept. 170 398 0 0.070Cliffside Park Water Co . 38 108 0 0.005Denville Water Dept. 5,277 13,620 149 1.951Dover Water Dept. 9,049 22,888 244 2.979East Hanover Water Dept. 3,838 11,557 0 1.851Elizabethtown Water Co. (ooc) 19 53 0 0.007Fayson Lakes Water Dept. 699 1,956 0 0.193Florham Park Water Dept. 3,077 8,306 151 1.148Hackettstown MUA (ooc) 1,216 3,488 26 0.465Jefferson Water Dept. 3,081 7,157 59 0.701

Kinnelon Water Dept. 144 402 0 0.048Lake Shore Water Co . 95 223 0 0.034Lake Stockholm Water Co. (ooc) 59 153 0 0.020Lake Valhalla Water 35 101 0 0.013Lincoln Park Water Dept. 4,492 11,556 664 1.316Madison Water Dept. 5,822 15,663 2,237 1.876Mendham Boro. Water Dept. 0 0 0 0.000Mine Hill Water Dept. 793 1,961 0 0.154Montville MUA 3,982 11 ,604 217 1.767Morris County MUA 0 0 0 0.000Mountain Shores Water Co . 29 65 0 0.008Mt. Arl ington Service Co . 302 753 18 0.056Mt. Arlington Water Co. 49 119 0 0.010Mt. Lakes Water Dept. 1,298 3,687 0 0.360Mt. Olive Twp. Water Dept. 4,662 11 ,006 52 0.990Mt. Olive Villages 1,589 3,753 0 0.254

Netcong Water Dept. 1,416 3,162 0 0.420NJ American Water Co. (occ) 8,710 21,755 343 2.341NJ Vasa Homes 74 171 0 0.011Parsippany Water Dept. 19,628 46,504 217 6.934Pequannock Water Dept. 5,183 14,191 19 1.717Pia usa Park Water Co. 54 145 0 0.015Randolph Water Dept. 5,383 14,796 0 1.648Riverdale Water Dept. 753 1,920 0 0.204Rockaway Boro Water Dept. 3,195 8,073 0 1.104Rockaway Twp Water Dept. 4,811 12,168 0 1.263Roxbury Twp. Water Dept. 3,005 8,346 0 0.629Roxbury Water Co. 2,677 7,707 67 0.637SMCMUA 21,916 54,722 2,791 9.051Washington Twp. MUA 2,783 8,044 0 0.873West Jersey Water Co . 197 461 0 0.072Wharton Water Dept. 2,180 5,230 17 0.819

Total Public Water Systems 142,229 363,735 7,588 46.885

Domestic Well Users 31,747 82,576 85 6.894

Self-Supplied Industrial and Agricultural Use- over 100,000 gpm 7.446Self-Supplied Industrial and Agricultural Use- under 100,000 gpm 0.407Small Public Community Systems 0.128

Total Future Water Demand 173,976 446,311 7,673 61 .760





Year 2010 Projected

Demand for Water

Public Water Supply Wells

0 Less than 0.03 MGD

0 0.03 -0.09 MGD

0 0.09-0.27 MGD

(!) 0.27 - 0.81 MGD

Projected Growth inTotal Households (HH)

D Lessthan JOOHH

D 100-JOOHH

300-600 HH

More than 600 H H

(!) More than 0.81 MGD Census Tra<:t Boundary

N 0 R T

0 2

0 2 3 4

1 nch to 8,300 feet

H

3 4

5 6

5 Miles

7 Kilometers

8 C{!)R 0

SOURCE:Served Areas: MCPB & CDM, 1992 . 1:12,000.

Public Water Supply Wells: MCPB, 1992. 1:12,000.Census Tracts: MCPB, 1992.

Population Projections: MCPB, 1992.

Map Prepared By:


ROCKAWAY TWP

T W P

(!)H A R D I N G

NG HI L L

T W P

BOONTON

T W P

T W P




Figure l-1: Year 2010 Project

Demand for Water



CHAPTER FOUR

Regulatory Requirements Affecting

Provision of Water SupplyThis section reviews current (and proposed)

federal and state laws which affect public com

munity water supplies . Because federal and

state statues are implemented through adminis

trative codes (i.e., "the regulations"), this sec

tion provides a brief overview of federal and

state statutes while focusing on specific regula

tory requirements related to the operation and

expansion of water utilities.

There are about 25 sections of the NJ Administrative Code that apply to the development

and operation of water supply systems. Each

water supplier must comply with each of these

regulations, which range from water supply

development approval, source protection, water

4-1

withdrawal reporting, treatment requirements,

water quality criteria, pressure and storage

requirements, conservation, emergency backup

supply planning, water system budgeting for

maintenance activities, and plumbing code

compliance. In addition, there are a number of

programs for which the state has direct responsi

bility, such as development of a Statewide

Water Supply Master Plan, but which involve

participation and data reporting by water systems.

A review of applicable regulations currently

in effect, as well as those currently being con

templated by NJDEPE and USEPA, reveals that

the operation of a water supply system has




become increasingly complex. The regulatory

requirements to maintain the quality and assure

the reliability of our water supplies make it

extremely difficult for small (and some not-so

small) water systems to continue to providewater at relatively low cost. The increasingly

complex regulatory structure is expected to

result in fewer small water systems being able to

continue to meet public water supply re

quirements.

Also included is this section are state and

federal programs related to protecting the purity

ofwater supplies. Programs such as NJDEPE's

Wellhead Protection Program and the State Spill

Law are intended to regulate activities that could

adversely affect water supplies, but which are

the responsibility of government agencies not

directly involved in provision of water supply.

Pending New Jersey legislation concerning the

regulation of land use in watersheds and protec

tion of aquifer recharge areas are additional

examples of regulations that indirectly affect

drinking water quality.

4.1 FEDERALWATER SUPPLY

REGULATIONS

4.1.1 Safe Drinking Water Act

The federal role in the control of public

community water supply systems is primarily

defined under the Safe Drinking Water Act

(SDWA) of 1974. That Act provided USEPA

c with authority over wa

__..) ter suppliers within the

United States. Substan

tially amended in 1986,

the Act required

USEP A to set forth

Maximum Contaminant

Levels (MCL's) for pri-

mary and secondary

contaminants. Primary

contaminants are those

which could have an


adverse effect on health. Secondary contami

nants are substances which can adversely affect

the acceptability of tap water for household use,

and include such parameters as taste, odor, and

color.The SDWA also required EPA to establish

certain treatment level standards, for example,

the "Filtration Rule" which requires that all

surface water supplies be treated through filtra

tion. The SDWA also mandates the develop

ment of programs by states intended to protect

the quality or quantity ofwater supplies, such as

the Wellhead Protection Program.

The USEP A plays a limited direct role in

water supply or drinking water quality regula

tions within the Stateof

New Jersey. TheSDWA delegated public water supply regulation

to the state environmental agencies. The EPA

role is generally limited to the issuance of

MCL's and treatment performance standards,

which the states must include in their regula

tions.

4.1.2 Sole Source AquiferProtection

Program

This program is intended to protect the

quality of aquifers that have been identified asthe sole source of drinking water for at least 75

percent of the persons in the aquifer service

area. This designation is most important for

aquifers that are particularly vulnerable to

contamination because of their hydrogeologic

characteristics. No project may receivefederal

financial assistance if the Administrator ofEPA

determines that the project may contaminate

such an aquifer through a recharge zone so as to

create a significant hazard to public health.

The Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program

applies throughout Morris County, because Sole

Source aquifer recharge areas cover virtually the

entire county. However, the aquifer studies and

restrictions on actions authorized under the Act

apply only to projects using federal monies,

such as federal highways and federally funded



sewer facilities. Most of the residential and

industrial development projects in Morris

County are privately sponsored and do not fall

under the requirements of the sole source aqui

fer program.

4.1.3 Clean Water Act

The federal government also plays a role in

the protection of raw water quality through the

passage and implementation of such laws as the

Clean Water Act. Again, the federal role is

limited to the promulgation of regulations and

standards; primary responsibility for imple

mentation is delegated to the states.

4.2 NJ REGULATIONS REGARDING

OPERATION OFWATER UTILITIES

4.2.1 Compliance With Maximum

Contaminant Levels (58:12A-1 et seq.

N.J.A.C. 7:10-5.1 et seq.)

Legislation providing USEPA with authority

over all water supplies was embodied in the Safe

Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974. The Act

required EPA to set primary drinking water

quality standards. The SDWA also required theestablishment of secondary drinking water

quality standards dealing with the aesthetic

quality of water such as odor and color. The

1986 Amendments to the SDWA required EPA

to promulgate Primary Maximum Contaminant

Levels (PMCL's) and Secondary Maximum

Contaminant Levels (SMCL's).

Under the SDWA, USEP A promulgates the

MCL's, but the primary responsibility for en

forcement was delegated to the state environ

mental agencies. Paralleling the federal actions,

New Jersey enacted the New Jersey Safe Drink

ing Water Act in 1977. Commonly known as

"A-280", the New Jersey law was amended in

1984 to require periodic monitoring of commu

nity water systems for a specified list of chemi

cals.

4-3

The 1986 SDWA Amendments required

EPA to regulate a total of 83 contaminants.

These regulations have been divided into five

phases based upon the types of contaminants

regulated:

0 Phase I - Volatile Organic Chemicals

0 Phase II - Synthetic Organic Chemicals,

Inorganic Chemicals, and Microbiologi

cal Contamination

0 Phase III - Radionuclide Contaminants

0 Phase IV- Disinfectant By-Product Con

taminant Regulations

0 Phase V - 23 Additional Organic and

Inorganic Compounds

Since the enactment of the 1986 SDWAAmendments, EPA has issued final regulations

for VOC's, fluoride, surface water treatment

(filtration rule), Phase II inorganic chemicals,

lead and copper. In New Jersey, there are cur

rently 62 contaminants for which Primary Maxi

mum Contaminant Levels or Treatment Tech

nique standards are enforceable.

There are 18 Secondary Maximum Contam

inant Levels in effect in New Jersey. These

include fifteen compounds for which final

SMCL's have been issued by USEPA plus three

additional (Hardness as CaC03, Sodium and

Taste) parameters. The PMCL's are listed in

Table 4-1 and the SMCL's are listed in Table

4-2.

USEPA also issued final MCL's for 18

organic and 5 inorganic Phase V compounds on

July 17, 1992. These limits have an effective

date of January 17, 1994, however, NJDEPE has

already issued enforceable MCL's for Endrin

and Methylene Chloride. The Phase V con

taminants are also shown on Table 4-1.

Morris CountyWater

Supply Element



Contaminant

lnorganics

1. Arsenic

2. Asbestos3. Barium

4. Cadium

5. Chromium6. Copper

7. Flouride

8. Lead

9. Mercury

10. Nitrate (as N)11. Nitrite (as N)12. Total Nitrate/Nitrite

13. Selenium

Organics6

14. Benzene

15. Carbon Tetrachloride

16. Chlordane

17. mono-Chlorobenzene

18. meta-Dichlorobenzene

19. ortho-Dichlorobenzene

20. para-Dichlorobenzene

21. 1 2-Dichloroethane

22. 1,1-Dichloroethylene

23. 1 2-Dichloroethylene(cis and trans)

24. Methylene Chloride

25. Biphenyls (PCBs)

26. Tetrachloroethylene

27. Trichlorobenzene (s)

28. 1,1, 1-Trichloroethane

29. Trichloroethylene

30. Vinyl Cloride

31 . Xylene (s)

Volatile Organics (Federal)

32. 1 2-Dichloropropane

33. Ethyl benzene

34. Styrene35. Toluene

Pesticides

36. Alachlor (Lasso)

37. Aldicarb (Temick)38. Aldicarb Sulfone

39. Aldicarb Sulfoxide

Table 4-1

New Jersey Drinking Water Standards

Primary Maximum Contaminant Levels

EPA Status Level (mg/1)

Regulation

lnterim1 Final 0.05

Phase 11 2 Final 7 MFL3

Phase II Final 2.0

Phase II Final 0.005

Phase II Final 0.1

Lead/Copper-4 Final 1.3

Rule

Flourides5 Final 4.0

Lead/Copper Final 0.015

Rule


Phase II Final 10.0Phase II Final 1.0

Phase II Final 10.0

Phase II Final 0.05

Phase Final 0.001

Phase Final 0.002

Phase Final 0.0005

Phase Final 0.004

N/A Final 0.6

Phase Final 0.6

Phase Final 0.075

Phase Final 0.002

Phase Final 0.002Phase Final 0.010

Phase V7 Final 0.002



Phase V Final 0.008

Phase I Final 0.026

Phase I Final 0.001

Phase I Final 0.002






Phase II Final 0.00440. Atrazine (Atranex, Crisazina) Phase II Final 0.003


(Action Level)

(Action Level)

A-280 Chemical

A-280 Chemical

A-280 Chemical

A-280 Chemical

A-280 Chemical

A-280 Chemical

A-280 Chemical

A-280 Chemical

A-280 ChemicalA-280 Chemical

A-280 Chemical

A-280 ChemicalA-280 Chemical

A-280 Chemical

A-280 Chemical

A-280 Chemical

A-280 Chemical

A-280 Chemical



Contaminant

41. Carbofuran (Furadan 4F)

42. Dibromochloropropane

(DBCP, Nemafume)

43 . 2,4-0(2,4-0ichlorophenoxacitic Acid)

(Formula 40, Weedar 64)

44. Endrin45 . Ethylene Dibromide

(EDB, Bromofume)

46. Heptachlor (H-34, Heptox)

47. Heptachlor Epoxide

48. Lindane

49. Methoxychlor

50. Pentachlorophenol

51. Toxaphene

52. 2,4,5-TP (Silvex)

53. Trialomethane (s)

Treatment Techniques

54. Acrylamide

55. Epichlorohydrin

Mircobiological Contaminants

56. Coliform bacteria

57. Total Coliform

58. Fecal/E. Coli

Turbidity59. Turbidity

Radiological Contaminants

60. Gros Alpha Activity

61. Radium 22662 . Radium 228

63. Beta particle and photonradioactivity

64 . Uranium65. Radon

Notes:

Table 4-1 , Continued

EPA Status

Regulation

Phase II Final

Phase II Final

Phase II Final

Phase V Final

Phase II Final

Phase II Final

Phase II Final

Phase II Final

Phase II Final

Phase II Proposed

Phase II Final

Phase II FinalInterim Final

Phase II Final

Phase II Final

TCR9 Final

TCR Final

TCR Final

Final

Interim Final

Interim Final

Interim Final

Interim Final

Radiological Final

Radiological Final

Level (mg/1)

0.04

0.0002

0.07

0.0002

0.00005

0.0004

0.0002

0.0002

0.04

0.001 8

0.003

0.050.1

0.005% dosed at 1mg/1

0.01% dosed at 20mg/1

0 pos. if single sample collected

1 pos sample if less than 40 samples

5% pos. from all samples

Positive Total Coliform or E. Coli

combination between routine and

repeat

0.5 NTU (95% of samples) at

combined filter effluent

15 pCi/1

5 pCi/1 (Ra226+Ra228)

20 pCi/1

4 millirem/yr

20 pCi/1 (proposed)

300 pCi/1 (proposed)

1 EPA Interim regulations were issued pursuant to Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974.2 Final Phase II regulations covering 38 Synthetic Organic Contaminants (SOCs) and Inorganic

Contaminants (IOCs) were completed in July, 1991 .3 MFL =Million fibers per liter with fiber lengths> 10 microns.4 U.S. EPA Lead/Copper Rule issued July, 1991.5 Promulgated April, 1986. Primary and secondary MCLs currently being re-evaluated .

4-5 Morris CountyWater

Supply Element



Table 4-2

New Jersey Drinking Water Standards

Secondary Maximum Contaniment Levels

Contaminant EPA Regulation Level (mg/1)

66. Aluminum Phase II Final 0.05- 0.2 (surface watertreatment MCL pending)

67. ASS/LAS Interim Final 0.5

(Foaming Agents)

68. Chloride Interim F,inal 250

69. Color Interim Final 10 color units (standard cobalt

scale}

70. Copper Interim Final 1.0

71 . Corrosivity Interim Final Within ± 1.0 of the optimum pH

as determined by the Langelier

Index; or by another method

acceptable to the NJDEPE

72. Flouride Flouride Final 2.0

73. Hardness (as CaCo) N/A Final 250 upper limit

50 lower limit

74. Iron Interim Final 0.3

75. Maganese Interim Final 0.05

76. Odor Interim Final 3 Threshold odor number (TON)

77. pH Interim Final 6.5 to 8.5

78. Silver Phase II Final 0.1

79. Sodium N/A Final 50

80. Sulfate Interim Final 250

81 . Taste N/A Final No objectionable taste

82. Total Dissolved Solids Interim Final 500

(TDS)

83. Zinc Interim Final 5.0

6 Pursuant to New Jersey Safe Drinking Water Act 1977 (Act 280).7 Final Phase V regulations covering 18 organic and 5 inorganic contaminants were issued July 17, 1992,

and became effective January 7, 1994.8 EPA taste and odor guidelines of 0.03 mg/1 .9 Total Coliform Rule promulgated June 24, 1989.

10 Surface Water Treatment Rule promulgated June 29, 1989.





4.2.2 Performance and Action Levels for

Water Treatment

Pathogen Removal

Under the USEP A Surface Water Treatment

Rule, surface water supplies and ground water

sources which are under the direct influence of

surface waters are required to achieve a three

log (99.9) percent removal and/or deactivation

ofGiardia Lamblia cysts, and a four log (99 .99)

percent removal and/or inactivation of viruses.

Filter effluent turbidity under the Surface

Water Treatment Rule must be less than 5.0

turbidity units at all times, and less than 0.05 in

more than 95 percent of all samples. Residualdisinfection entering the distribution system

must be at least 0.2 mg/1.

The Total Coliform Final Regulations estab

lish a minimum contaminant level for coliform

based upon the presence or absence of coliform.

Systems with a service population greater than

33 ,000 may not obtain coliform positive results

in more than five percent of the samples. Sys

tems with service populations less than 33 ,000

may not have a coliform positive result in more

than one sample per month to stay in compli

ance with the MCL.

Lead and Copper

EPA's Lead and Copper Rule, finalized in

July, 1991, sets action levels rather than MCL's

for lead and copper. The regulations require

-c-

semi-annual sam-

:

- piing offi lead h ~ n d h copper rom 1g

risk locations such

as homes in whichlead solder has

been installed

since 1982, or

which have lead

service lines. If

more than 10 per-

4-7

cent of distribution system samples exceed

0.015 mg/1 for lead or 1.3 mg/1 for copper,

treatment technique requirements are triggered,

consisting of optimizing corrosion control,

source water treatment and public education.

Systems with service populations exceeding

50,000 will be required to conduct corrosion

control studies if hey exceed the lead or copper .

action levels. These studies are intended to lead

to a corrosion control program by the utility.

Medium and small systems which, subsequent

to exceeding an action level, fall below the

action level for two consecutive sampling peri

ods may be considered to have an optimized

corrosion control program.

The first round ofsampling for large systemsended June 30, 1992. Small and medium sys

tems were required to complete their first round

ofsamplingbyDecember31, 1992. Based upon

the first round of samples, at least one water

supplier in Morris County has exceeded the

action level for lead.

4.3 NJREGULATIONOFWATER

ALLOCATIONS AND WITHDRAWALS

4.3.1 Water Supply Allocation (N.J.S.A.58: 1A-1, N.J.A.C. 7:19-1 et seq.)

NJDEPE regulates ground and surface water

withdrawals through a water allocation permit

ting process. Permits are issued for diversions

ofground or surface water exceeding more than

100,000 gallons ofwater per day for diversions

which will last more than 31 days annually.

Each permit specifies the amount of water

that can be diverted based upon hydrological

evaluation of the safe yield of the source. Ap

plicants must also demonstrate that existingusers of the supply source will not be impacted.

Water Allocation Permits also require mainte

nance of the quality of the water source, and

specify procedures to determine the location,

extent, and quality ofwater supplies.




Permit holders are required to submit annual

(or semi-annual) reports to NJDEPE detailingmonthly water usage for each permitted source

(7:19-2.8).

4.3.2 Water Diversion Fees (N.J.S.A.

13-1B.3,58:1A-1, N.J.A.C. 7:19-4.1 et

seq.)

Water diversion fees are collected by

NJDEPE for all withdrawals from surface wa

ters of the State of New Jersey and for withdrawals of ground water from wells on land that

is controlled (i.e., owned) by the state.

Fees for surface water withdrawals are based

upon a formula which includes average dailystream flows, the minimum passing flow re

quired to maintain designated water quality or to

serve downstream uses, and total daily diver

sions (N.J.A.C. 719-4.7(c). Ground water fees,

where applicable, are currently $1.00 per million

gallons.

4.3.3 Well Drilling Permits (N.J.S.A.

58:4A-14)

Prior to drilling a new well for a public

community or non-community water supply awell drilling permit must be obtained from theNJDEPE Well Permitting and Regulations

Section of he Bureau of Water Allocation. The

construction of the well and related appurte

nances such as pumps and piping must also be

approved by the Bureau of Safe Drinking Water

through the issuance of a Waterworks Approvalpermit.

Well drillers must be licensed in the State of

New Jersey by the Well Drillers and Pump

Installers Advisory Board. Within sixty daysof

completion of he well drilling, the drillers must

submit a standardized report describing the

materials penetrated, size and depth of the well,

the diameters and lengths of casings, static and

pumping levels and yields of the well.


4.4 NJ REGULATIONS FOR PROTEC-

TION OF GROUND WATER SUPPLIES

4.4.1 Wellhead Protection Program (Fed

eral Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S. C.

1428)

The 1986 amendments to the Safe DrinkingWater Act required that states develop programs

to protect well water and wellfields from con

taminants that could adversely affect public

health. New Jersey's final Wellhead Protection

Program Plan was approved by USEPA on

December 4, 1991.

The Wellhead Protection Program's purpose

is to minimize the risk to water supplies posedby potential ground water pollution. The Well

head Protection Program (WHPP) focuses on

the protection of water supplies in the area

around a well. The WHPP relies on existing

state, county, and municipal regulatory powers

to regulate the locations and operation of poten

tial and actual sources of pollution discharges,

and to regulate the location of new wells.

The Wellhead Protection Program Plan is

based upon the delineation of a three tiered

Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA) for each

well. WHP A boundaries are determined based

on aquifer characteristics, well pumping capac

ity, and a time of travel (TOT) factor which

estimates how quickly pollutants could migrate

to a well. The three concentric tiers correspond

to different TOTs, reflecting potential vulnera

bility to different types of contamination (e.g.,

bacterial, chemical spill, chemical storage).

Areas within Tier 1 have a TOT of 200 days.

Tier 1 focuses on the protection of the well from

pathological contamination from such sources as

leaking sewerage systems. Areas within Tier 2have a TOT of five years, and are directed at

protection from hazardous waste discharges.

Areas within Tier 3 have a TOT of twelve years,

and focus on monitoring of potential pollution

sources and control of pollutant discharges. The



intent of tier three is early identification of

discharges which could threaten the well years

in the future.

The Wellhead Protection Areas will be

delineated by NJDEPE. NJDEPE's initial effortswill focus on public community water supply

wells and clusters of domestic wells. Public

noncommunity wells will be addressed at a later

date. NJDEPE will first issue interim WHP A's

using regional aquifer data and an inventory of

NJDEPE regulated pollution sources. Potential

sources of pollution will be identified from

existing state permits (e.g. NJPDES surface

water discharge permits). Municipalities and

counties will also be asked to supplement the

state's data on potential sources of ground water

pollution.Final WHP A delineations will be proposed

by interested parties such as municipalities or

well owners. The final delineations are to be

based on site-specific aquifer data, and hence

delineations may be different than the interim

areas set by NJDEPE. The criteria for estab

lishing final WHP A's are set forth in NJDEPE

regulations.

- -ounty and municipal 9overnments

will be encourased to use existins powers

to make wellhead protection a

part of land use decision-makin9 and

public health code enforcement .

-Protection of wellheads will be achieved

through existing NJDEPE permitting programs

and through local land use and public healthregulation. NJDEPE does not anticipate a

"Wellhead" permit, rather the WHPA delin

eations will be used in future permitting deci

sions under current programs.

4-9

County and municipal governments will be

encouraged to use existing powers to make

wellhead protection a part of land use decision

making and public health code enforcement.

There is currently no statutory mandate that

county or municipal governments or public

water purveyors participate in the program.

However, NJDEPE may encourage participation

through state permitting processes, e.g. the

renewal ofwater allocation permits.

4.4.2 Wellhead Perimeter Protection

(N.J.A.C. 7:10 -11.4)

In addition to the Wellhead Protection Pro

gram outlined above, the current NJ Safe Drink

ing Water Act regulations concerning the construction of public community water systems

require the following ground water source

protection actions:

0 Duplicate wells and pumping

equipment or an approved inter

connection with a public commu

nity water system are required for

systems with more than 100 ser

vice connections.

0 All land within a minimum of 50

feet of a well must be acquired orunder the control of the water sup

plier.

0 Sewer lines within 100 feet of a

well must be of steel, cast iron,

ductile iron, etc, and must be com

pletely watertight and without

manholes.

Applications for construction permits for

wells from the Bureau of Safe Drinking Water

must include maps showing existing and

planned ground water sources, flood plainelevations, and potential pollution hazards such

as landfills, chemical storage areas, etc.

Morris CountyWater

Supply Element



4.4.3 AquiferRecharge Area Protection

Program (Assembly Bill1340, 1993

Legis.)

The Aquifer Recharge Area ProtectionProgram (ARAPP), mandated by state law, is

intended to protect the quality and quantity of

water entering the state's aquifers. These re

charge areas are generally larger than the well

head protection areas described above, and may

be a considerable distance from the wells which

withdraw from an aquifer.

The goals of the program are to reduce .

depletive uses of water. and to identify

potential sources of aquifer contamination.

This program will complement the Wellhead

Protection Program by focusing upon ground

water quantity and quality issues within entire

aquifers. The goals of he program are to reduce

depletive uses ofwater, and to identify potential

sources of aquifer contamination.

NJDEPE will initially focus upon groundwater recharge zone mapping. As data avail

ability and methodologies allow, NJDEPE will

refine the analysis from regional water with

drawal: water recharge ratios to include the

movements ofwater through an aquifer from the

points of recharge.

NJDEPE intends to use this data to support

recharge planning at the local and county levels.

Aquifer recharge areas would be protected

through best management practices. NJDEPE

was required by the Legislature to developgeneral ground water recharging planning

methodologies. These methodologies are cur

rently being published by NJDEPE and will be

available in September, 1993. A training semi

nar on ground water recharge planning has been

preliminarily scheduled for November of 1993 .


NJDEPE plans to implement the ARAPP in

several phases. In phase 1, NJDEPE will de

velop water withdrawal/recharge water balances

for the state's aquifers. The output of this activ

ity will be a set of aquifer recharge maps. Phase2 of the state's activities will expand the re

charge mapping to include ground water trans

port modelling in relationship to withdrawal and

recharge locations.

There is currently no requirement for county

or municipal participation in the ARAPP. It is

anticipated by NJDEPE that recharge planning

be included in the evolving State Development

and Redevelopment Plan process.

4.4.4 Well Abandonment (N.J.S.A. 4A-4.1)

Any well which has not been used for more

than three years or which is not properly main

tained is considered to be abandoned under New

Jersey law, and must be filled and sealed. Wells

deeper than 25 feet must be filled with neat

cement, cement-bentonite mixture, or bentonite.

Wells should be sealed with a three foot grout

plug. The well filling and abandonment must be

conducted by a licensed well driller, and a well

abandonment report must be filed with NJ

DEPE.

4.5 WATERSHED PROTECTION

4.5.1 Watershed Protection Act

(Proposed- Assembly Bill 560)

The proposed legislation would require

buffer zones for all watershed lands associated

with water supply reservoirs. This bill is essen

tially identical to Senate Bill No. 2339 which

the Legislature failed to enact in 1990.

Under the proposed legislation, a buffer zone

would be defined as a strip of land which is left

undisturbed or which is planted with specific

vegetation to achieve sediment and soil erosion

control. Watershed lands are broadly defmed as

"those lands located above or upstream from a



terminal water supply reservoir or intake, in

cluding the land surrounding tributaries or

feeder streams entering the water supply reser

voir." The proposed legislation calls for a

"multi-tiered" buffer zone approach.

Within one year of enactment, NJDEPE

would be required to issue implementing regu

lations, utilizing best management practices.

This concept can be attributed to the 1989

NJDEPE Report Evaluation andRecommenda

tion Concerning Buffer Zones Around Public

Water Supply Reservoirs. The report concluded

that while 50- to 300-foot buffer zones around

reservoirs can reduce non-point sources of

sediments and dissolved contaminants, pollut

ants would continue to reach the water supply

unless the buffer concept is also applied totributaries.- -

buffer zone is a strip of land which

is left undisturbed or which is planted with

specific vegetation to achieve

sediment and soil erosion control.

- -The report recommended that buffer zones

around reservoirs be supplemented by one or

two zones covering the remainder of the water

shed. Land uses leading to potential pollution

would be banned or controlled through best

management practices. It can be assumed that

the land use control aspects of the legislation

would have little direct impact on the operations

of purveyors. If the buffer zone concept were

successful in reducing the contaminant loading

to surface water supplies, water purveyors

should be better able to comply with Safe Drinking Water Act maximum contaminant levels

(MCL's) for pesticides and other chemicals.

4-11

4.5.2 Watershed Conveyance ActOf1988

(New Jersey Public Law 1988, C. 163)

The Watershed Conveyance Act established

a procedure to review and regulate the sale anddevelopment ofwatershed lands associated with

public surface water supplies. The Act mandat

ed that NJDEPE study watershed buffer zones.

The Act also imposed an 18-month ban on the

conveyance of any land owned by a municipal

or investor-owned utility unless approved by the

Watershed Property Review Board. The Board

consists of he Commissioners ofEnvironmental

Protection and Community Affairs and the

President ofthe Board ofPublic Utilities.

Senate Bill No. 2036, enacted in May 1990,

extended the conveyance moratorium until

NJDEPE issues watershed protection regulations

under the proposed Watershed Protection Act

(S.B. 2339). The ban on conveyance of water

shed lands remains in effect pending action on

the current Watershed Protection Bill. In Morris

County, approximately 13,700 acres ofwater-

shed properties are affected by the ban. Most of

these lands are owned by Jersey City and New

ark.

4.6REGULATIONSAFFECTING

CONSTRUCTION AND EXPANSION OF

WATERWORKS

4.6.1 Approval OfCommunity Water

Systems (N.J.S.A. 58:12A-1 et seq.,

N.J.A.C. 7:10-11 et seq.)

Pursuant to the New Jersey Safe Drinking

Water Act, the Bureau of Safe Drinking Water

must review and approve the plans and specifi

cations for wells, treatment facilities, distribution piping and appurtenances prior to con

struction. This review is limited to "sanitary

engineering features of public health signifi

cance".

Morris CountyWater

Supply Element



Applications for construction permits must

include a variety of site maps and a detailed

engineer's report (N.J.A.C. 7:10-11.2(c)).

Depending upon the scope of the project, the

Engineer's Report should include data about thesafe or dependable yield, raw water quality,

hydrogeological data (ground water supplies),

pilot testing results, details about the process

train, wastewater treatment provisions, current

and design year populations and water demands,

and environmental impacts.

The design standards for the construction of

public community water systems are given in

Subchapter 11 ofthe New Jersey Safe Drinking

Water Act Regulations (N.J.A.C. 7:10-11.1 et

seq.). NJDEPE does not follow the "Ten State

Standards,"1 and no technical guidance manuals

are published by NJDEPE although NJDEPE

does require verification of the adequacy of the

proposed treatment process with respect to state

and federal treatment standards.

4.6.2 Air Pollution Control Permits

Certain water treatment process and auxiliary

equipment may require Air Quality Permits

from the Bureau ofNew Source Review within

NJDEPE. In general, any potential sourceof

airpollution emissions is subject to permitting.

Equipment most likely to require permitting

includes air strippers, ozone destruction units,

chemical storage tanks, and standby electrical

generators.

Air permits are required for air stripping

equipment if any toxic volatile organic sub

stance (VOS) included in the regulations

(N.J.A.C. 7:27-17) exceeds 100 parts per billion

by weight and the total concentrations ofVOS

exceeds 3,500 parts per billion and the air strip

ping equipment has a capacity exceeding

1Recommended Standards for Water Works of the

Great Lakes Upper Mississippi River Board of State

Public Health and Environmental Managers, Health

Education Services, Albany, N.Y., 1992.


100,000 gallons per day (N.J.A.C.

7:27-8.2(a)(12)).

Standby generators that consume diesel fuel

at a rate exceeding one million BTU's per hour

must be permitted, based upon the emission of

particulates. Generators are unlikely to require

emissions control equipment. NJDEPE com

pares estimated emission levels from the equip

ment manufacturer with industry standards for

similar equipment.

Any stationary storage tanks for liquids other

than water or distillates of air with capacities

exceeding 10,000 gallons must also be permit

ted. This requirement would apply to treatment

chemicals such as alum, sulfuric acid, caustic

soda, and sodium hypochlorite.

4.6.3 Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act

(N.J.S.A. look up, N.J.A.C. 7:31-1 et seq.)

Under the rules implementing the New

Jersey Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act

(TCPA), several water treatment chemicals such

as ozone, gaseous chlorine, and chlorine dioxide

are listed as extraordinarily hazardous sub

stances. Water systems which store or utilize

more than the listed registration quantity for

each material must enter into a permitting process which culminates in the issuance of an

administrative consent agreement with the

Bureau of Release Prevention within NJDEPE.

Ninety days prior to the start of construction

on any equipment that must comply with TCPA,

registration forms must be submitted, a safety

review report and a risk assessment must be

prepared. Prior to the initiation ofoperation of

the facility, a Summary Risk Management

Program must be approved by NJDEPE. This

program incorporates operation and mainte

nance and emergency response procedures,

including coordination with local officials.



4.6.4 Discharge Prevention Containment

and Control (N.J.A.C. 7:1E-1.1)

Under the NJDEPE Spill Compensation and

Control Act regulations, facilities at whichhazardous chemicals are used or stored must

register the facilities and prepare 1) a Discharge

Prevention, Containment and Countermeasure

Plan (DPCC) and 2) a Discharge Cleanup and

Removal Plan (DCR). The DPCC consists of

design features, i.e. secondary containment, and

operating procedures. The DCR addresses the

procedures to be followed in the event of a spill.

NJDEPE approval of the plans must occur prior

to the initiation of operation.

The regulations cover several chemicals

commonly used in water treatment, such as:ozone, alum, sulfuric acid, sodium hydroxide,

sodium hypochlorite, and fuel oil. The regula

tions cover all loading areas, storage, yard

piping and utilization areas, including truck

docks, chemical storage areas, and pipe galleries

leading to chemical feed or mixing areas.

Truck unloading areas must have secondary

containment with sufficient capacity to hold the

contents of the largest compartment of a chem

ical tank trailer, plus an additional capacity to

accommodate six inches of rainwater, if thesecondary containment or diversion structure is

located such that rainwater could accumulate in

it. Extensive environmental mapping of

sensitive areas is required covering the "maxi

mum area of potential impact" in the event of a

failure of the secondary containment system. In

addition, an Environmentally Sensitive Areas

Protection Plan must be developed and certified

by an aquatic biologist and an ornithologist.

The area covered under these requirements

could range up to 15 miles down-gradient of the

plant.These requirements may be reduced through

the demonstration of tertiary containment

demonstration of limited environmental threats

posed by the chemicals used at the facility.

4-13

4.6.5 Local Planning Board Approval

And Building Approvals

The construction of water treatment facilities

or the installation of water mains require approval of the planning boards of the munici

palities in which the project is located. Projects

are typically reviewed concerning stormwater

management, set-back requirements and compli

ance with the local zoning. The installation of

utility facilities is a conditionally acceptable use

under most municipal zoning ordinances.

Local building permits are also required for

water supply and distribution expansions. The

building plans and specifications (i f applicable)

are reviewed by the local code enforcement

officer for compliance with the BOCA code.Most municipalities have a Class 1 approval

authority from the New Jersey Department of

Community Affairs (DCA). Lacking this, the

plans must be reviewed by the DCA.

4.7 ASSURANCE OF WATER SYSTEM

RELIABILITY

4. 7.1 Takeover OfSmall Water Compa

nies (N.J.S.A. 58:11-59 et seq. N.J.A.C.

7:19-5)

NJDEPE may order the acquisition ofprivate

water companies if the small water system

serves fewer than 1,000 customer connections

and is unable to deliver water that meets state

drinking water standards. A hearing is held be

fore NJDEPE and the Board of Public Utilities

(BPU) to determine the actions required to bring

the water company into compliance. These

actions may include takeover of the company by

another private water company or by a public

agency, and the adjustment of customer rates so

that systems directed to take over small systems

do not suffer financial hardship.

A number of small community water sys

tems exist in Morris County that could be sub-




jec t to this Act if they fail to meet water quality

testing schedules, fail state inspections, meet

state facility requirements, and/or provide water

that does not meet drinking water quality stan

dards.

4. 7.2 Water Purveyor Emergency Re

sponse Planning (N.J.S.A. 58-JA-1 et

seq., N.J.A.C. 7:19A-3.2)

To insure that public community water

purveyors have the institutional capacities to

maintain water service during emergencies,

water purveyors must obtain NJDEPE approval

of an emergency response plan. Key aspects of

the plan include the identification of supply

interconnections and/or back-up sources, interimwater use restriction plans, emergency response

teams, and inter-agency coordination plans.

Water utilities are also required to perform a

vulnerability assessment and solicit water use

contingency plans from their largest customers.

These requirements are in effect for all

water purveyors serving more than 3,000 cus

tomers. Prior to March, 1990, the requirements

had been limited to purveyors with more than

50,000 customers. The level of compliance

among small purveyors is not known. Thevulnerability assessments could provide useful

sources of information as to the needs for future

coordination and water distribution system inter

connections.

4. 7.3 Minimum System Pressure and

Storage Requirements (N.J.S.A. 58:/A-5,

N.J.A.C. 7:19-6.7)

To insure that water systems provide ade

quate delivered pressure and volumes for fire

fighting and other uses, a minimum water pres

sure of 20 lb/square inch is required at street

level. Minimum daily storage requirements

range from 30 to 100 percent of average daily

demand, depending upon the availability of

back-up supplies.


4. 7.4 Interconnections (N.J.S.A. 58:/A-5,

N.J.A.C. 19:6-8)

To assure the availability of water during

emergencies or droughts, NJDEPE may requireinterconnections for all Class 2 (service popula

tion between 10,001 and 50,000) and Class 3

(service populations greater than 50,000) water

utilities. If conditions warrant, NJDEPE may

also require interconnections for Class 1 (service

populations of 10,000 or less).

Upon notification from NJDEPE, the water

utility must conduct an interconnection feasibil

ity study to identify the most cost-effective

alternative and schedule for project completion.

The completed study must be approved by

NJDEPE prior to project implementation. If wo

systems are within 1,000 feet of each other, it is

assumed to be cost effective to interconnect. If

the systems are greater than 1,000 feet apart, but

within a mile of one another, then a feasibility

study must be completed.

Unless otherwise demonstrated to NJDEPE,

it is assumed that the benefits of interconnection

are shared by both systems, and hence the costs

of the project are to be divided proportionately

between the systems. NJDEPE must approve

this cost allocation and interconnection agreement.

4.8 WATER EMERGENCY, SHORTAGE,

AND DROUGHT-RELATED

REGULATIONS

4.8.1 Emergency Water Supply Alloca

tion and Conservation (N.J.S.A. 58:1A-1

et seq., N.J.A.C. 7:19A-1 et seq.)

NJDEPE is authorized during a state ofwateremergency (as declared by the Governor) to

order reductions in water use, to prohibit use of

a water source, to require the use of an alternate

water supply, to make emergency interconnec

tions between water systems, and to order trans-



fers of water from one system to another.

NJDEPE can also order water purveyors to

increase, decrease, or suspend their production,

or to ration water among classes of users accord

ing to priorities established by NJDEPE. Sur

charges are authorized to enforce water use

restrictions, and the Governor is empowered to

suspend any laws conflicting with these emer

gency water supply provisions.

These provisions are applicable in Morris

County, and could be used to transfer water

either into or out of the county during supply

emergency, specifically drought, but also in

cases of emergency loss of major supply sour

ces.

4.8.2 Water Supply Critical Areas(N.J.S.A. 58:1A-1 et seq., N.J.A.C.

7:19-6.10)

NJDEPE may determine, after a public

notice and hearing, that an area has insufficient

sources of water to provide for authorized uses

while maintaining water quality standards. A

critical area may be declared if ground water

overdrafting beyond the long-term dependable

yield of an aquifer results in aquifer deteriora

tion. For Morris County and other non-coastal

areas, the declaration of critical supply areas

would be considered only if a clear trend were

identifiable showing major deficiency in water

quality or quantity or the existence of a wide

spread pollution threat which adversely affects

the provision of safe water.

Upon the declaration of a Critical Water

Supply Area by the Governor, NJDEPE has a

broad range of authority to take steps necessary

to insure reliable water distribution, including

the following:

0 Specialized supply source water quality

sampling

0 Ground water recharge actions

4-15

0 Ordering mandatory reductions in with

drawal amounts

0 Utilization of alternative water sources of

supply.

4.8.3 Determination ofSafe or Depend

able Yield (N.J.S.A. 58:1A-5, N.J.A.C.

7:19-6.3)

All water suppliers are required to provide

for a safe and dependable yield from their own

sources or from water supplies available by

contract, sufficient to meet the normal demands

of their customers, net of contractual obligations

to provide other systems. Water obtainable

through inter-connections with other systems

may not be included in the safe yield calculation

unless the supply cannot be canceled or sus

pended during droughts. NJDEPE must review

and approve all such service contracts.

The safe/dependable yields of permitted

sources are determined by NJDEPE; however,

the water supplier can submit calculations of an

alternative safe yield. A progressive reduction

in the water table in the aquifer is considered by

NJDEPE as presumptive evidence that the

dependable yield is less than current withdraw

als.If a supplier determines that the

safe/dependable yield is less than normal de

mands, it may announce its intention to revise

existing contracts to serve other suppliers. In

such cases, NJDEPE may order a ban on new

services and/or the acquisition of additional

supply capacities.

4.8.4 Large User Contingency Plans

(N.J.S.A. 58:1A-5, N.J.A.C. 7:19A-3.4)

Water suppliers are required to request that

all customers with water use exceeding 250,000

gallons/day develop contingency plans for

dealing with water supply emergencies or

droughts. These contingency plans should




address potential conservation steps, alternative

supplies available to the users, and the conse

quences of a shut-down due to interruptions in

the water supply.

4.9 STATEWATERSUPPLY

DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES

4.9.1 New Jersey Water Supply Authority

(N.J.S.A. 58:1B-1 et seq. (1981))

The New Jersey Water Supply Authority was

established to provide for unified jurisdiction

over all state water supply facilities, including

those established pursuant to the Water Supply

Bond Actof 1981

(see below). The Authorityconsists of the Commissioner of NJDEPE and

six members of the public. The Authority is

empowered to issue bonds and to use the pro

ceeds to establish water supply facilities consis

tent with the New Jersey Statewide Water

Supply Plan. The Authority also has the power

of eminent domain. It is also empowered to

develop new supply sources and to provide

wholesale distribution ofwater to areas of need

as identified by the State Water Supply Master

Plan.

No supply projects are currently proposedfor Morris County in the Water Supply Master

Plan. However, the Master Plan update process,

for which a major revision is underway, is likely

to identify supply enhancement alternatives for

Morris County. Public comments submitted to

NJDEPE, pursuant to its request for input on

issues to be addressed in the Master Plan, have

requested that NJDEPE consider both structural

(e.g., reservoirs) and non-structural (e.g., con

servation) approaches to new supply. The

Authority could play a major role in new source

development or transmission of new supplies to

Morris County.


4.9.2 North Jersey Water Supply

Commission (N.J.S.A. 58:5-1 et seq.)

The North Jersey Water Supply Commission

was established in 1916 to develop, acquire andoperate water supply systems for the twelve

county North Jersey Water Supply District

(Sussex, Warren, Hunterdon, Passaic, Morris,

Monmouth, Somerset, Bergen, Hudson, Essex,

Union and Middlesex Counties). The Commis

sion owns and operates the Wanaque Reservoir

system which serves the City of Newark and

other areas. The North Jersey Water Supply

Commission is not involved in any projects for

the development of future water supplies for

Morris County.

4.10 STATEWATER SUPPLY PLANNING

ACTIONS

4.10.1 Statewide Water Supply Planning

(N.J.S.A. 58:1A-1 et seq.)

The NJ Water Supply Management Act gave

the New Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection and Energy a broad mandate to

control, conserve and manage the water supply

in the state to ensure its adequacy. In pursuit ofthis end, NJDEPE is authorized to issue rules

controlling water supply for the entire state or

for any region within the state (N.J.S.A.

58 :1A-5).

The Water Supply Management Act requires

formulation of the New Jersey Statewide Water

Supply Plan, which is to be updated every 5

years. The plan identifies water sources, esti

mates future demand for water, recommends

legislation and administrative action to protect

watersheds, and recommends constructionof

and improvements to state water supply facili

ties, construction of interconnections, and con

solidation of water supply systems (N.J.S.A.

58:1A-13).



The Water Supply Management Act makes

it clear that NJDEPE has ultimate legal authority

over the potable water supply in the county, and

that Morris County's efforts must be coordinated

with state programs. This act also authorizedthe institution of Critical Water Supply Areas,

whereby use of specific ground water sources in

central and southern New Jersey is restricted

because of aquifer deterioration.

4.1 0.2 Statewide Water Quality Planning

(N.J.S.A. 58:11A-1 et seq.)

Under the NJ Water Quality Planning Act,

the future locations and discharges of potential

water pollutants are to be planned for by desig

nated planning agencies and by NJDEPE. Thislegislation was adopted in response to Section

208 of the federal Clean Water Act of 1972.

Each designated planning agency is required

to conduct an area-wide waste-treatment plan

ning process to address the anticipated munici

pal and industrial wastewater treatment needs of

the planning area, and to identify sewered and

unsewered locations. The agencies are also

required to address the control of non-point

source pollution.

The Water Quality Planning process isrelevant to water supply concerns for several

reasons. The implementing regulations specify

that water allocation and Public Water Supply

construction permit applications must be re

viewed for compliance with the area water

quality management plan. Thus, at least in

theory, NJDEPE considers the secondary im

pacts on water quality resulting from the expan

sion of water supply and distribution systems.

Expansions ofwater supply systems that are not

coordinated at the municipal or county level

with corresponding wastewater treatment capacities are likely to encounter regulatory delays.

4-17

4.11 WATERCONSERVATION

4.11.1 Water Conservation Planning

(N.J.S.A. 58-1A-1 et seq., N.J.A.C.

7:19-6.5)

To encourage water conservation through

distribution system leak corrections and through

demand reduction, all public community water

systems are required to conduct conservation

planning as a condition of the utility's water

allocation permit.

Water suppliers must report to NJDEPE on

water usage, leak detection activities, and other

activities. Leak detection programs must be

carried out at least once every three years. Theregulations also require that new services must

be metered in systems serving more than 500

customers.

The regulations also require that rate struc

tures encourage conservation. These may

include seasonal rates and increasing block

rates: however, uniform rates are more typical in

New Jersey.

All water suppliers in Morris County are

subject to these requirements. While NJDEPE

appears to enforce the water use reportina0

0reqUirement, the rate structure, leak detection

and other aspects of the conservation planning

regulations are not actively enforced at this

time.

4.11.2 Unaccounted For Water (N.J.S.A.

58-1A-1 et seq., N.J.A.C. 7:19A- 6.4)

Unaccounted for water (UAW) is defined as

the difference between the quantity of water

entering a distribution system and the metered

consumption. NJDEPE has set a goal of 15%for UAW, including fire fighting, leakage, and

other known but unmetered uses (e .g., schools,

public facilities.

Utilities with service populations exceeding

500 people must report the level of UA W to




NJDEPE annually. Those uses within the top35% UAW levels within their size class areconsidered "provisionally delinquent" by NJ

DEPE, and are required to submit a corrective

action plan to the state. The utilities remaindelinquent until their UA W levels fall to themedian of the size class.

This program is currently in place for allcommunity water systems serving more than

500 customers.

4.11.3 Uniform Plumbing Code- Water

Saving Appliances (New Jersey Uniform

Building Code Law (N.J.A.C. 5:23-3.15))

The State ofNew Jersey utilizes the NationalStandard Plumbing Code consumption standardsfor water fixtures. The code was revised in

1990 to encourage water conservation throughthe use of water-saving plumbing fixtures andappliances through the use of state-specific

standards.

Under current NJDEPE regulations, waterpurveyors are supposed to include public education in their conservation plans. Water utilities

are not required to provide water-saving devicessuch as low flow shower heads or toilet tank

dams.

The New Jersey Plumbing Code prescribeswater consumption standards for certain plumbing fixtures such as toilets and showers. For

example, all toilets installed in new constructionor as replacements are required to utilize no

more than 1.6 gallons per flush.

4.12 SYSTEM FINANCING

4.12.1 System Rehabilitation Planning

and Budgeting (N.J.S.A. 58:1A-5,N.J.A.C. 7:19-6.6)

To insure the long term reliability of treatment and distribution systems through scheduled renewal and replacement programs, water


utilities are required to perform a managementand status survey within one year of the issuanceof NJDEPE criteria. These criteria have notbeen issued to date. · Upon approval of the

survey by NJDEPE, the utility is required toimplement the renewal and replacement schedule during the following fiscal year. Any utilitynot submitting an approvable survey is required

to commit ten percent of total gross water supply revenue to renewal and replacement activities.

While this requirement is technically in

place, NJDEPE has not issued management andstatus survey criteria against which the rates of

renewal and replacement activities may be

compared. NJDEPE is not currently enforcingthis requirement.

4.12.2 Financing Water Supply Improve

ments (Water Supply BondAc t of1981,

L. 1981, c. 261, N.J.A.C. 7:1A-1.1 et seq.)

The Water Supply Bond Act of 1987 authorized the issuance $350 million in state general

obligation bonds to provide funding for the

planning, design, acquisition or construction of

state water supply facilities. The Act also

authorized loans to state or local programs forimprovement of inadequate water supply facilities. Either the county or municipalities withinthe county can borrow funds under this act toimprove eligible water supply facilities deemed

inadequate. Only limited grant funding forsupply improvement has been available.

4.13 PROTECTION OF WATER QUALITY

4.13.1 New Jersey Pollution Discharge

Elimination System (N.J.S.A. 58:JOA-1,

N.J.A.C. 7:14-1.1 et seq.)

The state requires dischargers to obtainpermits for discharge to state waters, to disclosethe nature and volume of their discharges, to



report accidental discharges to NJDEPE within

24 hours, to impose specific limitations on

pollutant discharges, and to monitor and report

to NJDEPE their compliance or noncompliance

with these limitations.

Enforcement of the provisions of NJPDES

permits helps to maintain the quality of the

county's ground and surface water supplies.

Any point-source facility that allows pollutants

to flow into the ground or surface water system

is required to obtain a review and permit under

this program. Facilities covered by this regula

tion include lagoons, storage piles, storage

areas, discharges to the land surface, and efflu

ent pipes. Dischargers include any person,

business, or process with a waste product.

4.13.2 Identification and Cleanup Of

Hazardous Waste Sites (N.J.S.A.

58:10-23.11 et seq., N.J.A.C. 7:1E-1.1 et

seq.)

The federal Superfund law establishes a

system for identifying, ranking, and cleaning up

hazardous substances released into the environ

ment, whether the release is a one-time occur

rence (e.g., from a spill) or a continuing process

(e.g., from an old disposal site). This act alsoestablishes a fund to finance cleanup of aban

doned hazardous waste sites and other cleanup

actions to protect the environment. Those sites

eligible for cleanup under this act are placed on

the National Priorities List (NPL).

The NJ Spill Law prohibits the discharge of

petroleum products and other hazardous sub

stances and provides for prompt cleanup of

spills. In addition, it makes the responsible

parties strictly liable for cleanup costs and for

direct and indirect damages caused by the spill.

The spill law also establishes a fund to pay forcleanup when costs cannot be recovered from

the responsible parties. These laws provide

procedures and funds to remove, treat, or con

tain hazardous substances to prevent their com

ing into contact with potable water supplies.

4-19

Funds are not disbursed from the NJ Spill Fund

iffunds for the same purpose are available from

the Superfund.

4.13.3 Regulation of Transportation Of

Hazardous Waste (40 U.S.C. 2:1801 et

seq., 42 U.S. C. 6901 et seq.,· N.J.S.A.

39:5B-25 et seq; 49 CFR 171; 40 CFR

263; N.J.A.C. 16:49)

Under the Federal Hazardous Materials

Transportation Act, the U.S. Department of

Transportation regulates shipmentsof hazardous

materials by interstate carriers, including intra

state shipments. The regulations list more than

1,200 hazardous materials. If a discharge of a

hazardous material occurs during transport, thetransporter must either clean it up or take other

action required or approved by federal, state or

local officials to prevent the spill from posing a

threat to human health or the environment. In

addition, all discharges occurring during trans

port must be reported.

New Jersey law empowers the state Depart

ment of Transportation to adopt regulations

conforming to the requirements of the federal

regulations governing transportationofhazard

ous materials. The NJDOT regulations generally adopt the federal regulations by reference

and extend their coverage to all intrastate ship

ments.

The Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act and the regulations implementing it estab

lish a hazardous waste tracking system designed

to discourage illegal disposal by making it

possible to assign liability for improper handling

of the material at any point from generation to

final disposal and beyond. During transporta

tion, hazardous waste is tracked using a manifest

system. Spills of hazardous waste must bereported.

These provisions of federal law can help

officials keep track of spills of hazardous mate

rials that may occur in the county, especially as

related to the transportation system. The mani-




fest and reporting systems are administered by

NJDEPE, and relevant information is available

from the NJDEPE Division ofHazardous Waste

Management.

4.13.4 Inventory OfHazardous Sub-

stancesAnd Their Locations (Emergency

Planning and Community Right-to-Know

Act (Federal), 42 U.S. C. 2' 1101 et seq.;

Worker and Community Right-to-Know

Act, N.J.S.A. 34:5A-1 et seq. (1983))

To keep employees and host communities

informed of the presence of hazardous sub

stances in the workplace for health and safety

purposes, businesses and utilities are required todisclose the hazardous substances that are pres

ent at their facilities. Awareness of he presence

of hazardous material in each community can

help to avoid water contamination problems and

help to trace the source of contamination should

it occur. The New Jersey law requires that busi

nesses provide separate lists of substances that

are a hazard in the workplace and substances

that are a potential threat to the environment.

The lists of substances for any business are

available to the public on written request to the

New Jersey Department of Health.

4.13.5 Stormwater Permitting (33 USC

1251 et. seq.; N.J.S.A. 58:1 et seq.; 7

N.J.A.C. 14A:1 et seq.)

The 1987 amendments to the federal Clean

Water Act expanded the NPDES permitting

process to include discharges of stormwater by

large municipalities and industries. The USEPA

stormwater regulations (40 CFR 122 - 124)

issued on November 16, 1990 required permits

from municipalities exceeding 100,000 in popu

lation and from industries falling into 28 Stan

dard Industrial Classification (SIC) categories.

Potable water treatment facilities are not in-

cluded among these 28 industrial categories;


however, municipal wastewater treatment plants

were listed.

To handle the estimated 10,000 industries in

New Jersey subject ·to these regulations,

NJDEPE intends to issue a general permit formost industrial users which are not subject to

NJPDES discharge permitting for their process

waters. Proposed regulations were published on

July 6, 1992 (24 N.J.R. 2352) Affected indus

tries must submit a Request for Authorization

within six months of the effective date of the

regulations.

The control of stormwater pollution will

emphasize management practices rather than

point of discharge treatment. Industries must

develop a two-phased Stormwater Pollution

Prevention Plan (SPPP). The SPPP must con

tain a listing of materials which are exposed to

the elements, drainage diagrams, and a de

scription ofbest management practices to ensure

that the facility does not discharge through

storm sewers, and storm water that is exposed to

source materials.

The stormwater permitting process will in

theory reduce the levels of stormwater borne

contaminants entering the raw water supplies of

Morris County; and the proposed bes t manage

ment practice approach parallels the approach tosource control to be taken through the Wellhead

Protection and other programs.

The proposed stormwater permitting process

does not yet include any municipalities within

Morris County; nor does the program address

pollution from parking lots, roadways, lawns

and other potential sources of contamination

from residential and commercial land uses.



CHAPTER FIVE

Conclusions and Recommendations

Extensive ground water and surface water

resources are present in Morris County, as a

result of the geology of the county and the

rainfall patterns in New Jersey. Analysis of

water demand versus supply indicates that there

should be sufficient water supplies to meet the

needs ofMorris County residents and businesses

through the year 2010. Nevertheless, several

important issues have been identified in this

Element concerning the distribution, quality,

and protectionof

the county's water supplies.These issues must be addressed in order to

ensure that sufficient potable water is available

at a reasonable cost to all consumers within

Morris County.

5-1

Issues:

1. Allocation ofWater Resources

Morris County has an abundance of

ground water resources overall; however,

some areas are water-rich while others are

water-poor. No plan exists nor has a policy

been created which addresses how the water

resources of the county should be equitably

distributed to meet the current and future

needs of municipalities throughout the

county.

2. Surface Water Exportation

Approximately 54 million gallons per day

(MGD) of water is exported from Morris

County compared to the total of 47 MGD of

water used to serve Morris County residents




and businesses. Most of the exported water

is transferred from four large reservoirs

located in central and northwestern portions

of the county. Although the county has an

abundanceof

surface water resources, almostall of it is used to serve those who reside

outside ofthe county.

3. Water Mining and Aquifer Depletion

Other than those portions of the county

served by on-site septic systems, most of the

water withdrawn from wells is eventually

discharged into surface water (streams and

rivers), and not recharged into the ground

water aquifers. Water is being "mined" in

the county, not "recycled" into the ground.

The county is dependent on precipitation to

recharge the aquifers and, therefore, may be

more susceptible to aquifer depletion during

drought conditions.

The Central Passaic Buried Valley Aqui

fer in the south-eastern portion of the county

is suffering from ground water depletion.

Drawdown of he aquifer can be attributed to

a number of factors including the historic

accumulation of diversion rights, excess

pumpage, and the reduction of recharge

areas.

4. Aquifer Recharge Protection

Over 95% ofMorris County residents are

dependent on ground water. No coordinated

program exists to protect the ground water

recharge areas. The development of an

aquifer protection program by a municipality

is an important step towards aquifer protec

tion. However, since political boundaries do

not coincide with the recharge areas, concern

for adequate aquifer protection is warranted.

5. Water Supply Contamination Monitoring

There is no response plan at the countylevel in the event of water supply contami

nation. Although the state has a program for

well testing and actions to be immediately

taken by the purveyor in the event of con

tamination, no long term solutions to the


problems of contamination have been devel

oped by the state.

6. Water Quality Protection

There has only ·been a piecemeal ap

proach to resolving the incidence of contamination of public and private wells in

Morris County. Currently each contamina

ted site is remedied on an individual basis.

The Wellhead Protection Program is the only

area-wide program directed at protecting

water quality.

Analysis indicates that there

should be sufficient water supplies tomeet th e needs of Morris County residents

and businesses through th e year ZO 10.

7. Water Quality Testing Standards

Small purveyors and many municipal

water departments do not have the expertise

or funding available to comply with the

current and pending water quality testing

requirements.8. Distribution ofSupply

Within Morris County, over 45 purveyors

serve parts of 39 municipalities. The effi

cient allocation and distribution of potable

water is a concern with this many water

systems. Since the costs of developing

supply sources, as well as maintaining and

upgrading the systems, are spread over a

limited customer base, the cost ofwater per

household may be greater especially for the

smaller purveyors.

9. Information Management

Because of the increasing number and

complexity of regulations governing water

supply, many municipal and small private

purveyors may require technical assistance



in order to comply with state and federal

requirements. In addition, information

needed for water supply planning is not

readily available. The only source for water

supply data is the NJDEPE which has several

divisions and bureaus regulating variousaspects of water supply. However, each

bureau develops and maintains its own infor

mation which, in most cases, is not compati

ble with another bureau's data.

5.1 QUANTITY OF EXISTING AND

FUTURESOURCESOFVVATERSUPPLY

5.1.1 Existing Supply and Demand

In 1990, the average daily demand forpotable water supply within Morris County was

approximately 57 MGD. Public water systems

supplied three-quarters of this average daily

demand (approximately 43 MGD) to Morris

County residents. In addition, approximately 6

MGD was used on an average day by domestic

well users, while nearly 8 MGD was used by

self-supplied industrial and agricultural users.

All of the water systems surveyed for this

plan reported no problems meeting the current

average-day demands. However, East HanoverWater Department did indicate difficulties

meeting peak demands due to water quantity and

quality problems.

The county-wide average per capita demand

for potable water in 1990 was 123 gallons per

capita per day (gpcd). For individual water

systems, the per capita demand factor ranged

from 42.1 gpcd to 170.4 gpcd. The per capita

demand factors vary because industrial and

commercial uses are often served by public

water systems. Thus, the per capita water

demand factor includes not only individualindoor and outdoor residential water use, but

also a share of any local commercial or indu

strial water use provided by the public water

system.

5-3

5.1.2 Future Supply and Demand

By the year 2010, the number of people

living in Morris County is projected to grow by

approximately six percent, to some 446,000

residents. Associated with this growth is a

corresponding increase in water demand.

Projections based on current per capita water

use indicate that the demand for water will

increase over the next 20 years by about ten

percent, from 57 MGD to approximately 62

MGD.

Approximately one-fifth of the increased

demand is expected to be supplied by new

individual residential (domestic) wells. The

remaining four MGD of the increase in water

demand is expected to be supplied by existingpublic water systems, drawing from either

currently under-utilized sources or through the

development of new sources.

The water systems with the largest projected

increases in demand are SMCMUA, Randolph

Water Department (supplied by MCMUA), and

Montville MUA. East Hanover Water Depart

ment and Washington Township MUA also

show a substantial increase in demand. With the

possible exception ofEast Hanover, all of these

water systems should be able to supply this

demand with current or newly developed sour

ces. Due to existing water quantity and quality

problems, East Hanover is in the process of

searching for additional supplies from sources

outside of the township.

Water demand supplied by domestic wells is

predicted to increase from 6 MGD to 7 MGD,

while self-supplied industrial and agricultural

use is expected to remain fairly constant over

the next 20 years.

While many of the water systems surveyed

for this plan are concerned about their ability toprovide for future growth, there appears to be

sufficient water supply resources in the county

overall to accommodate the projected 2010

growth. However, to avoid further depletion of

the currently stressed aquifers, the reallocation

of the water resources should be considered to




more equitably meet the needs ofall water users

in the county.

5.2 DISTRIBUTION OF WATER

RESOURCES

5.2.1 Allocation of Water Resources

Although the county is projected to have

sufficient water resources overall to meet future

demands, some areas of the county have more

available water resources than others. The more

highly developed areas in the eastern portion of

the county, situated over a substantial aquifer

system, are apparently stressing this ground

water system. The less developed western

portion of the county appears to have significant

water supply potential which is not currently

being fully tapped. (MCMUA has advanced

several proposals to develop and protect water

supplies available from this location.)- -Projections based on current per

capita water use indicate that the demand

for water will increase over the next

20 years by about te n percent. from 57

MGD to approximately 62 MG D.--- -NJDEPE has contributed to the isolation and

segregation of small water systems through its

ground water allocation regulations. NJDEPE

has followed the policy that water supply can

only be provided in response to near-term future

need (i.e., development proposals). Existing

NJDEPE regulations do not allow the creationand protection of water supplies in advance of

actual development. Water resource

management can be an important growth

management tool that potentially contributes to


more efficient development patterns and better

use of the resource.

There is currently no plan or policy which

addresses how the water resources of Morris

County should be equitably distributed to meetthe current and future needs of municipalities

throughout the county.. Thus, while the total

supply of water appears to be adequate for a

twenty-year planning horizon, there is no means

of ensuring that this water will be allocated

equitably among the residents ofMorris County.

Several crucial issues must be addressed

when considering any policy that would result in

re-allocation of water supplies in the county,

specifically: system level of investment in the

resource; threat to the supply; and availability of

alternate supplies, among others. Ideally, some

parity should exist between water supply in an

area and development potential. Furthermore,

the relationship between resource protection

(e.g ., protection of recharge areas) and aquifer

yield should be addressed, so that locations

providing aquifer protection do not do so at the

cost of ratables lost to another location.

Finally, transfer of water between major

drainage basins should be reserved for emer

gency supply situations. Inter-basin transfer can

disrupt the water balance in a system and lead toaquifer depletion and stream baseflow reduction

in the sending basin, and potential flooding in

the receiving basin.

5.2.2 Surface Water Exportation

According to the preliminary data collected

from NJDEPE on water supplies within Morris

County, approximately 54 MGD of surface

water and 47 MGD of ground water, for a total

of 101 MGD of supply, are diverted within

Morris County. However, more than halfof thiswater (nearly all of the surface water) is

transferred out of Morris County for use as

potable water elsewhere.

The major source of this out-of-county

transfer ofwater is the withdrawal of nearly 50



MGD from the Boonton Reservoir by Jersey

City. Because Jersey City owns this reservoir

and has obtained the necessary state permits to

withdraw supply from this source, Morris

County has no control over its use.

However, the county and state should

consider the effects of any additional proposed

transfers of water out of Morris County and the

effects of any proposed transfer of water into

Morris County. Most immediately, Morris

County should further investigate whether the

7.5 MGD of supply that is available from the

Jersey City Boonton Reservoir can be effective

ly utilized.

5.3 GROUND WATER MANAGEMENT

5.3.1 Water Mining andAquifer

Depletion

Other than those portions of the county

served by on-site septic systems, most of the

water withdrawn from wells is eventually

discharged into surface water (streams and

rivers) via wastewater treatment plants. In

Morris County, surface water bodies are most

oftenjedby ground water, instead of the surface

water recharging the aquifer. Thus, once water

is discharged into a stream it is lost as a supply

source for Morris County (particularly because

many wastewater treatment plants discharge to

the Passaic River, the Pequannock River, and

the Pompton River, all located on the edges of

the county).

Water has been historically "mined" in the

county, and withdrawals have exceeded re

charge needed to maintain the supply. The long

term effects of this are seen in certain sections

of the Central Passaic Buried Valley Aquifer

which are suffering from depletion (dewatering).The Central Passaic Buried Valley Aquifer is

located in the southeastern portion of Morris

County, where over 39 percent ofthe county's

residents live, and is the source of water for the

purveyors serving this section of the county.

Drawdown of this aquifer can be attributed to a

5-5

number of factors, including the historic

accumulation· of diversion rights and intensive

pumping patterns.

With the development of more accurate and

detailed information on the geology, hydrogeol

ogy, location, and extent of the buried valley

aquifers by the USGS and NJGS, the cumulative

impacts of ground water withdrawal by all

purveyors can be more precisely assessed.

(Initial findings suggest that withdrawals have

exceeded recharge in this area.) Comprehensive

management of the ground water resource

utilizing new hydrogeologic models should

reduce aquifer depletion, while still providing

substantial and sustainable amounts ofwater for

public water supply.

5.3.2 Aquifer Recharge Protection

Over 95 percent ofMorris County residents

are dependent on ground water. The ultimate

source of this water is precipitation (primarily

rainfall) that percolates into the ground and

recharges the ground water. The area that

provides recharge to a ground water aquifer is

called the recharge zone. Depending upon the

specific aquifer, the recharge zone may be

directly above the aquifer (as is the case for

unconfined aquifers), or may be distant from theaquifer (as is the case for confined aquifers).

Even within a general area that may recharge a

particular aquifer, specific locations vary

regarding recharge capability based on soils,

topography, and other factors.

Identification of the recharge area associated

with an aquifer is important because proper

management of land use in this area protects

both the quantity and quality of the water

available from that aquifer. Development in the

recharge area tends to increase the amount ofimpervious surface area (e.g., roads, parking

lots, rooftops), preventing precipitation from

percolating into the ground. In addition, inap

propriate development within a recharge area

may lead to pollution of the aquifer.




Instead of providing recharge, stormwater

runoff in developed areas is often conveyed

through culverts and pipes into surface water

bodies, with little possibility of recharging the

ground water system. Thus, impacts on known

recharge areas should be considered when

determining appropriate land development

patterns. Several municipalities in Morris

County have adopted master plans and zoning

ordinances that recognize the importance of

ground water recharge. Development densities

in these areas are based on the water bearing

characteristics ofthe subsurface geology.

However, the development and implementa-

tion of aquifer recharge protection programs at

the municipal level is difficult. First, identifi-

cation of recharge areas in Morris County hasnot been completed by the technical agencies.

NJGS and USGS are in the process of conduct-

ing studies to more precisely identify the

important recharge areas. Second, recharge

areas do not coincide with political boundaries,

and the recharge area for the ground water used

in one town may well lie within the jurisdiction

of another town. A united and coordinated

effort towards aquifer recharge protection is

needed by all local and regional agencies in

order to protect the county's water resources.

5.4 WATER QUALITY

5.4.1 Water Supply Contamination

Ground water quality problems have been re-

ported in several parts ofthe county, including

in portions of Chester Township, Dover, East

Hanover, Hanover, Mine Hill, Montville, Mount

Arlington, Netcong, Randolph, Rockaway

Borough, Rockaway Township, Roxbury,

Washington Township, and Wharton. Figure5-1 , "Hazardous Waste Sites," depicts the more

environmentally complex sites in the county

which have been polluted by several sources

and/or multiple contaminants. In many cases,

more than one media (soil, ground water, and/or


air) has been affected by the contamination1.

However, no detailed analysis ofwater quality

was conducted for this plan which focused on

sources and demand for water.

In order to more accurately determine theeffect that contamination is having, or may yet

have, on Morris County's water supply, a

detailed study of water quality should be per-

formed. This study should include analysis of

existing water quality data collected by well

owners and surface water users in the county, as

well as an examination of known or suspected

sources of contamination (such as Superfund

sites, underground storage tanks, etc.). The

results of such a water quality study would be

invaluable to the county in protecting the quality

of the water resources.

5.4.2 Water Quality Protection

Ground Water Protection Practices

Actions that can be taken to prevent well

contamination are known as ground water

protection practices (GWPP's). Although the

clean up ofground water is technically possible

through remedial actions, it is very expensive,

requires replacement supply during remediation,

and can require decades until contamination is

reduced to drinking water standards. Or

alternatively, contaminants in water must be

removed (or reduced) as part of a water treat-

ment operation which is also a costly approach.

For these reasons, GWPP's focus on minimizing

pollution sources and on having monitoring

mechanisms in place to detect contamination

before it impacts potable supplies. This section

presents several GWPP's that are useful in

minimizing possible ground water contamina-

tion.Sources ofdrinking water pumped from sur-

face aquifers can be affected by pollution that

1NJDEPE, 1991 Site Remediation Program Site

Status Report, Fall1991.



Hazardous Waste Sites

Legend

• Hazardous Waste Site

..- Well

Buried Valley Aquifer

N 0 R T H

0 2 3 4

\.,

. , __

5 Miles



.

//

(

l

,I

/

1 •.- -1 ·--·--·---·:--

SOURCES:

.J.....--

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Toxic & Hazardous Materials Agency,"Remedial Investigation Concept Plan for Pica inny Arsenal", March 1991

NJDEPE "Site Remediation Program; Site Status Report", 1991

This report contains the more environmentally complex sites beingremediated. It does not reflect all remedial activities. The reportcontains those sites where there are multiple sources of contamination;multiple environmental media affected; multiple contaminants; and/ora multi-phased approach is being applied .

All Superfund sites; the more complex ECRA cases; major casesoverseen by the Division of Privately Funded Site Remediation's PartyCleanup Program; & other non-superfund publicly funded sites.

.Map Prepared By:


//

/

: ·i

i

1994 Water Supply Master P

County of Morris, New Jersey


Figure 5-1: Hazardous Waste Sit



enters the aquifer from individual points of

discharge (point sources), or from pollution

contained in runoff that carries pollution depos

ited on the land surface (non-point sources).

Potential point sources include leaking under

ground storage tanks (containing gasoline,

heating oil, industrial chemicals), chemical

spills, landfills, septic systems, or other local

ized discharges of chemicals into the ground,

such as poor product storage and handling

practices.

Sources of non-point pollution include road

salt, lawn fertilizers, household pesticides, and

parking lot and roadway runoff. Non-point

source pollution generally contaminates ground

water over larger areas but at lower concentra

tions than point sources.

Controlling Point Sources ofPollution

Underground Storage Tanks. Underground

storage tanks (UST's) are used by many private

and public institutions to store heating oil,

gasoline, and hazardous materials. Federal and

state regulations address the design and con

struction ofUST's and have requirements for the

release of substances to the environment.

Installation of new UST's in accordance to those

regulations, such as using noncorrosive tanksand/or secondary containment chambers, should

minimize the discharge of hazardous substances

to ground water. However, existing tanks

installed before 1965 should be replaced and all

tanks should be periodically tested for

"tightness."

Septic Systems. Septic systems that are not

properly maintained may discharge bacteria and

viruses into ground water which may then cause

disease if ingested in the drinking water.

Existing research indicates that the life ofbacteria and viruses in ground water is limited to

less than one year. Thus, improperly maintained

septic systems pose significant threats of

contamination to potable water supplies if they

are within the tier 1 wellhead delineation zone

(attenuation of microbial pollutants) which has

5-7

a time of travel range of one year. In addition,

uninformed owners of septic systems may pour

household chemicals down sink drains. A range

of household chemicals may inhibit the proper

operation of septic systems, and may also leach

into the ground water causing contamination.

Known Discharges ofContaminants. Exist

ing sources of pollution are regulated by the

state. The state seeks to control current dis

charges from pollutant sources and to remediate

any ground water contamination that has oc

curred. This task may be difficult to accomplish

without altering the supply of water when

chemical discharges occur near wells. In

addition, the state manages contamination on a

site-by-site basis and does not routinely consider

the cumulative impacts of geographicallyproximate contamination sites.

Controlling Non-Point Sources ofPollution

Roadwqy Pollutants. Pollutants, such as oil

and grease, that build up on roadways and

parking lots between rainstorms can pollute both

ground and surface waters. Rainwater carries

the pollutants through storm sewers and into

streams. Once in streams, the concentrated

pollutants may pass

through stream bedsto the ground water

system by a

mechanism known

as induced recharge.

Municipalities and

the county may

partially control

these sources of pollutants through land use

planning and review. As part of their routine

street cleaning, municipalities might consider

cleaning commercial parking lots and seek

reimbursement from owners.

Roadwqy De-icing. Similar to other types of

pollution on roads, road salt may contaminate

both surface and ground water following snow

melt or rain. The application of road salt should

be carefully monitored so that only the amount




necessary to protect the safety of the travelling

public is applied. The use of less harmful

de-icers should also be evaluated.

Motor Vehicle Services. Businesses which

service automobiles often generate and storemany potential pollutants at their facilities .

Such businesses include service stations, car

dealers, and auto repair shops. The hazardous

materials that these facilities utilize can include:

lead-acid batteries, waste oil, Freon, antifreeze,

and wash water. If, in the operation of these

facilities, chemicals are improperly stored and

waste products are improperly disposed,

chemicals may be discharged to septic systems,

sewage systems, storm water systems, or directly

to the ground water. Owners of such facilities

may not be aware of the potential for pollutionfrom their business.

Agricultural Uses and Landscaping. Proper

use of fertilizer and pesticides on farms and

home and business landscaping may substan

tially reduce pollution caused by these sources.

Lawns that are regularly aerated, thatched, and

on which grass clippings have been left, require

less water and fertilizer. Increased use of shade

trees may also reduce the stress on a lawn, and

thus require less water and fertilizer. In

addition, alternative (native) forms of vegetationand organic fertilizers may reduce pollution.

Unregulated Sources. Other sources of

non-point pollution come from small unregulat

ed sources such as home heating oil tanks,

leaking sewer lines, and stormwater detention

basins. Municipalities should encourage resi

dents to have their heating oil tanks checked for

leaks. They should also regularly maintain

detention basins within their jurisdiction to

ensure the basins are working properly, and that

accumulated sediments/contaminants are

removed and disposed of properly.

Land Use Controls

Municipalities have the authority under

Municipal Land Use Law to adopt ordinances to


regulate development in order to protect the

environment and safeguard public health.

Ordinances may be constructed that will mini

mize risk to ground water supplies through

appropriate spatial distribution of future development. Development with high ground water

pollution potential may specifically be guided

away from prime aquifer recharge zones.

Because gr-ound water- tr-avels acr-oss

municipal bor-der-s. neighbor-ing townships

should be ur-ged to cooper-ate.

Coordination is required between state,

county, and local governments to optimize

protection of ground water resources. Each unit

of government has jurisdiction over different

sources of pollution and has available different

methods of controlling pollution. In addition,

because ground water travels across municipal

borders, neighboring townships should be

informed ofwater quality protection programs

and urged to cooperate in their implementation.

Wellhead Protection Program

New Jersey has recently adopted a Wellhead

Protection Program Plan, which calls for the

identification of wellhead protection areas

(WHPA's) around each public community

supply well. These WHP A's are designed to

identify existing (and discourage future) poten

tially contaminating land uses within an area

where water reaches the well within 12 years.

(Due to the relatively slow rate of movement of

ground water-often measured in feet perday-this area is usually much smaller than the

entire recharge area of the well.) WHPA's are

intended to be delineated for wells in uncon

fined, surficial aquifers, because wells in con

fined aquifers are not as susceptible to surface



contamination sources. NJDEPE proposes to

delineate WHP As around all public community

supply wells in coming years, but the timetable

is not well defined and will depend on the staff

availability.

The NJ Wellhead Protection Program relies

on existing state, county, and municipal regula

tory powers to manage the locations and opera

tion of potential and actual sources of pollution

discharge, and to regulate the location of new

wells. Protection ofwellheads will be achieved

through existing NJDEPE permitting programs

and through local land use and public health

regulation. County and municipal governments

will be encouraged to use existing powers to

make wellhead protection a part of land use

decision-making and public health codeenforcement. There is currently no statutory

mandate that county or municipal governments

or public water purveyors participate in the

program. However, NJDEPE may encourage

participation through state permitting processes

(e.g., the renewal of water allocation permits).

Morris County should consider a role in

NJDEPE's implementation of the Wellhead

Protection Program in the county. Boundaries

of WHP A's often cross municipal borders, and

planning, zoning, and enforcement coordination

between neighboring municipalities needs to be

facilitated.

5.5 WATER SUPPLY REGULATION

Current regulations affecting the provision of

water supply in New Jersey indicate that at least

25 sections of Administrative Code and

Regulations affect the development, treatment,

and distribution of water. From the raw water

source to the customer tap there is now a

continuous trailof

regulations that govern howwater supply is withdrawn, treated, and distrib

uted. State and federal agencies currently

regulate all aspects ofwater supply, from water

supply development and protection, to raw water

withdrawal, to physical facilities for treatment

5-9

and distribution, to operation and maintenance

of treatment and distribution facilities.

The newly established Maximum Contami

nant Levels (MCL) for chemicals in potable

water now require more extensive testing of

water supplies and potentially requires more

sophisticated treatment processes for removal of

chemicals to below the MCL level. In New

Jersey, there are currently 62 primary MCL

parameters and 18 secondary MCL parameters

which must be evaluated in the water supply and

be removed where MCL's are exceeded. The

1986 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments

require EPA to promulgate a total of 83

contaminant levels. The Phase V contaminants

were finalized in 1992, and set regulations for

23 contaminants (from among the list of 83).Rules for synthetic organic contaminants (SOC)

and inorganic contaminants (IOC) were pro

mulgated by EPA in 1991. These parameters

cover a broad range of organic and inorganic

chemicals, and conventional testing compo

nents. Recent changes to MCL levels for lead

and copper have received substantial press

attention, and have required an extensive

sampling and analysis program (as well as

remediation where levels are exceeded).

Anticipated in the future are regulations from

EPA regarding disinfection byproducts for

surface water supplies, and increases in the

number and strictness ofMCL's. Furthermore,

EPA is currently proposing a fmal radionuclides

rule, which will regulate, among other radio

nuclides, the amount of naturally occurring

radon permitted in water. Also, EPA intends to

propose what is known as the Ground Water

Disinfection Rule in 1994 that will include

specific treatment requirements for disinfection

of water supply sources, as well as monitoring

and analysis.

Simply tracking a water system's compliance

with 25 different sets of regulations and

remaining current on the state and federal water

supply regulations is a complex and arduous

task, even for large water systems. For small

water systems, the cost of administration, the




cost of water quality testing, and the cost of

potential treatment processes will potentially

lead to significant rate increases for water

systems with limited customer bases. The

potential to be outof

compliance with the bevyof regulations that affect water supply is in

creasing over time.

The implications of existing and future water

supply regulations, especially as related to water

quality testing and compliance, suggest that

larger water systems, with a broader customer

(revenue) base, will be better able to continue to

meet evolving regulatory requirements. Small

water systems are likely to require, at minimum,

increased assistance in compliance, and at worst,

small systems may ultimately be unable to meet

the increasingly strict requirements ofmaintaining a public water supply system. This

issue is significant in Morris County because of

the presence of a large number of small water

systems.

5.6 DISTRIBUTION OF SUPPLY

Morris County is served by approximately

50 different purveyors, delivering about 43

million gallons of water per day for users within

the county in 1990. The purveyors serving

Morris County range from small community

systems to large water supply companies. Some

purveyors act solely as water distributors,

purchasing their water supplies from other

purveyors. Another purveyor acts solely as a

water "wholesaler", selling water only to other

purveyors. The majority of the purveyors,

however, are involved in both supplying and

distributing potable water to individual ·

residential and business customers.

With such a large number of purveyors,

Morris County is somewhat unique in NewJersey. The efficiency of allocation and

distribution of potable water can be lessened

with so many water systems. For example, the

cost ofwater per household is usually greater for

the smallest purveyors, because the costs of

Morris CountyWater Supply Element 5-10

developing supply sources and maintaining and

upgrading water treatment and distribution

systems are spread over a limited customer base.

A large number of purveyors can be an

advantage if the ground water pumping patternis broadly distributed. The geographic dis

persion of water supply wells has two positive

effects: (1) the principal source of water supply

is generally located proximate to the customer

location, increasing transmission efficiency; and

(2) the dispersion of ground water withdrawal

throughout the county has resulted in minimal

effects on the yield and level of ground water

supplies. The exception is southeastern Morris

County, where ground water levels have de

clined as a result of intensive pumping.

Morris County is served by approximately

50 different purveyors. delivering

about '+3 million gallons of water per day

for users within th e county in 1990.

USEP A defines a "small" water system as

serving fewer than 3,300 people. Eighteen of

the purveyors in Morris County (approximately

40 percent) would be considered "small" under

this definition. Furthermore, thirteen of these

small systems serve fewer than 500 people.

The fifteen water systems in Morris County

that each produce over 1.0 MGD provide supply

to about 260,000 (75 percent) of the 345,600

residents who rely on public water systems.

However, 25 percent of the county residents

(85,700 people) who rely on public water

systems receive their water from 32 differentwater systems that each produce less than 1.0

MGD. In addition to the water supplied by

public water systems, about 18 percent of the

county's residents are served by on-site domestic

wells.



A 1987 national level report studying water

supply found that small water systems as a

whole "are the greatest impediment to the

successful implementation of the SDWA [Safe

Drinking Water Act] Amendments"2• The

following characteristics of small water supply

systems highlight the problems that these

purveyors face because oftheir size:

6 owned by a homeowner association,

institution, or mobile home park entre

preneur;

6 no full-time or part-time water system

operator; .

6 little or no knowledge of water system

management or operations;

6 little or no knowledge of water systemfinances;

6 no water rate to support the full cost of

service delivery;

6 no economies of scale;

6 little or no access to capital;

6 often serve a fixed income population.

Many of these characteristics are typical of the

small purveyors in Morris County. Additional

ly, small purveyors in the county have few or no

observation wells for monitoring aquifer waterlevels and do not have the capability to clean up

polluted wells.

The current land development pattern in the

western and northern portions ofMorris County

is characterized by clusters of development,

separated by vacant, agricultural, or undevel

oped land areas. A multitude of small localized

water systems have developed in association

with this land use pattern. However, the

geographic separation ofmost ofthe small water

systems makes them unable to share supplies inthe event of an emergency or to support new

growth.

2Wade Miller Associates, Inc. The Nation's Public

Work: Report on Water Supply. National Council on

Public Works Improvement, May 1987.

5-11

Also of note in Morris County is the geo

graphic location of the large and small water

systems. The eastern, developed areas ofMorris

County are served by large water systems.

However, growth in Morris County is projected

to occur in the central and western sections of

Morris County, where small water systems

predominate.

Small water systems are increasingly bur

dened by the greater complexity and number of

maintenance, operation, water quality, and

treatment requirements imposed by federal and

state agencies. The revenue base of small water

systems is limited, and increasingly complex

regulatory requirements make compliance

difficult. Furthermore, small water systems in

the central and western portions of the countymay not have the capital financing sources

available for the needed system expansion to

accommodate the anticipated additional growth.

When these systems fail or are abandoned,

NJDEPE can require that the municipality or

other local purveyor take over the operation of

the system and make improvements to meet

state requirements. The takeover of these small

systems can be a costly burden to municipalities

(or adjacent water systems) which do not have

the technical expertise or capital necessary to

operate and improve the system.

Thus, the existing distribution of water

supplies is recognized to be relatively efficient

at the local level, given the historic (dispersed)

land development patterns in Morris County.

The distribution system is inflexible with

respect to facilitating effective system intercon

nections, and does not support the most effective

placement and grouping of wells. Proper

distancing of wells by adjacent systems can

reduce well interferences; coordinated action by

adjacent systems can result in more effectivewell pumping patterns that take into account

local aquifer characteristics.

A central theme of this Water Supply Master

Plan Update is the need to introduce a

formalized mechanism for water system coor

dination in the county. The existing level of




water supply coordination in Morris County is

unlikely to be the most effective approach to

protecting well supplies in the future, nor is it

the most effective approach to development of

new well supplies to meet the demands of newgrowth. The proliferation of more small water

systems is not desirable, and due to the vulner

ability of the ground water system to pollution

(in runoff, from spills and discharges, and from

leaky underground storage tanks), new develop

ment should be provided with water from an

existing water system. A new small water

system should not be created to serve an indi

vidual subdivision or other development project,

whenever feasible.

5.7 POTENTIAL COUNTY WATER

SUPPLY ACTIONS

As discussed throughout this report, Morris

County exhibits a profusion of small water

systems dispersed throughout its area. The

small water systems are likely to require assis

tance in the future for: engineering and

fmancing of system expansion; providing supply

backup capability; meeting regulatory require

ments; meeting water quality goals; and pro

viding enhanced treatment or alternative supplies where pollution has affected wells. Also,

there is a need for development of additional

water supplies in Morris County to meet the

demands of new growth, which will occur

primarily in the central and western sections of

the county.

The current administrative and regulatory

process for developing and distributing water

supply in Morris County does not provide

adequate coordination and planning among the

47 water systems and 39 municipalities. The

MCMUA currently serves as a supplydevelopment agency as well as a supply

wholesaler, serving existing and future water

customers. However, because MCMUA serves

as a wholesale purveyor to several water

systems in the county, it cannot be considered a


disinterested arbiter of local supply and land use

issues. For these reasons, the primary recom-

mendation of his Water Supply Element is that

the county intensively explore appropriate

means of coordinating water supply effortsthroughout the county. Coordinating actions are

best provided at the county (regional) level,

because the ground water resources that provide

water to the majority of county residents encom

pass large sections ofthe county. In fact, three

principal buried valley aquifer systems are the

sources of virtually all the county's ground

water.

Given the changes in NJDEPE water supply

policy, science, technology, and regulations as

related to water quality, and land development

trends since the 1982 Morris County WaterSupply Master Plan, there is also a need for the

county to consider new and/or expanded water

supply management and development functions

for the reasons discussed below.

6 New water supply policy initiatives are

being developed at NJDEPE as an out

growth of the findings of the revisions to

the Statewide Water Supply Master Plan

update process. New approaches being

discussed are watershed-based ap

proaches to determining yield of supplysources, as well as new approaches that

link wastewater management and water

supply, in terms of inter-basin transfer of

resources and quality management.

6 Improvements in technology have al

lowed detection of increasingly small

amounts of contamination in water.

Often, knowledge of the presence of

previously undetectable contaminants in

water supplies has led to concern about

the potential health effects of chemicals

in the supply, and has motivated research

in reducing exposure and ingestion of

such materials. Improved understanding

of the physiological effects of various

constituents in drinking water has led to

increased stringency in water quality



regulation. A case in point is EPA's new

lead rule, which has dramatically lowered

the acceptable amounts of lead in

drinking water, while simultaneously in

creasing the near-term monitoring for

lead.

{) Land development trends have moderated

in Morris County since the preparation of

the 1982 Water Supply Master Plan. The

influence of the State Development and

Redevelopment Plan on municipal

planning and zoning is presently

unknown.

The need to protect existing ground water

supplies, to develop and protect new ground

water supplies, to assist the numerous small

water systems serving county residents, and to

integrate new water supply arrangements to

provide the most reliable sources and systems

for supply, indicates that a coordinated effort is

required to address the water supply issues

facing Morri s County. The county's actions

should focus on the six general areas presented

below to assist local purveyors in ensuring that

sufficient potable water is available for the

county now and into the future.

1. Supply Development.

In order to ensure that sufficient cleanwater is available at a reasonable cost in the

future, the extent of involvement by the

county in the development of new supplies

should be determined. Actions range from

source protection strategies, to siting for new

supply sources, to actual development of

new supplies depending on the levels of

support obtained from other agencies.

2. Water Quality Protection.

The county may wish to consider

"clearinghouse" activities to help local watersystems obtain information relevant to

operations. Such information might include

data from federal, state, and local programs

designed to assist water systems to

implement new water quality testing and

treatment requirements, and data regarding

5-13

funding assistance sources where supplies

have been contaminated. The county may

also wish to consider approaches to facilitate

implementation of wellhead protection by

water systems serving the county. Along

with other strategies, such protection will

help assure the quality of ground water

sources into the future.

3. Growth Management/Recharge Protection.

Land use planning and zoning approaches

and growth management strategies, are

potential tools in protecting ground and

surface water supplies . Stream corridor

buffers, density restrictions, and structural

and non-structural stormwater management

mechanisms have been implemented in

various locations to achieve water supply

protection.

4. Conjunctive Use Strategies.

Morris County currently relies primarily

on ground water supplies. However, because

additional supply is potentially available

from the Jersey City Boonton Reservoir, the

county should determine the optimal use of

both ground and surface water resources so

as to minimize stress on each source of

supply.

5. Emergency Response.

The county has currently assigned all

drought response actions to the county Emer

gency Response Coordinator. The existing

plan which sets forth specific levels of

emergency and specific categories of re

sponse is done in cooperation with the

Morris County MUA. We strongly

recommend that the drought plan's scope be

expanded to include emergencies related to

the loss of water supply form well/source

contamination due to spills and pollution.As already noted in this element, the current

water supply distribution network and

regulatory constraints on water supply

source availability is highly complex in

Morris County. The Morris County MUA

has the water supply expertise to be the lead




agency to assist in the preparation of the

expanded emergency plan. Furthermore, the

amended plan should establish a functional

response procedure to allow for a joint

coordination role between the countyEmergency Response Coordinator and the

county MUA as contamination emergency

situations arise.

6. Future Use of Domestic Wells/Domestic

Well Testing.

Several local and county governments in

New Jersey have implemented mandatory

hook-up requirements where public water

supplies are within a specified distance of

the new development. Other counties have

implemented domestic well water testing

requirements when title transfers occur in

order to assure the quality of ground water

supplies. Morris County might consider ac

tions, in concert with local governments, that

would reduce dependence on domestic wells,

as well as actions to encourage water quality

testing of domestic wells.

5.8 RECOMMENDED COUNTY WATER

SUPPLY ROLES AND APPROACHES

In order to address some, or all, of the areasof action discussed above, the county may wish

to consider the following potential roles and

administrative approaches to water supply

planning and management. (Please note that

some activities are mutually exclusive.)

0 Establish a water advisory body to the

Board of Chosen Freeholders. This body,

representing municipalities, county

agencies, watershed associations, public

and private purveyors, would help create

a forum to discuss the many water-relatedissues raised in this Element such as

supply development, recharge protection,

emergency response, and technical

assistance. Currently, each issue is

addressed individually and on a piece

meal basis. There is benefit in the


sharing of ideas and resources as well as

in presenting a unified voice for action.

0 Review opportunities to use existing

MCMUA staff and functions to serve the

technical assistance needs of smallerwater systems, and to coordinate devel

opment and protection of new water

supplies. Furthermore, with respect to

MCMUA, consider roles that contribute

to consolidation of small water systems

and interconnection and upgrade of small

system facilities.

0 With input from local water companies

and municipal water departments, , the

MCMUA should develop a functional

plan for the exploration and developmentof future regional water supplies. The

MCMUA, in conjunction with NJGS,

should also identify aquifer recharge

areas and other sensitive water supply

areas which should be permanently

protected. The MCMUA is eligible to

receive funding for the acquisition of

these areas from the Morris County Open

Space Trust Fund.

0 Provide a "clearinghouse" for informa

tion on local supply source issues and

problems. By consolidating information

in a central repository, and updating in

formation regularly, it is often possible to

discern patterns of problems, specifically

as related to source yield and quality.

Sharing information among local system

regarding supply and operations issues

can improve the effectiveness of small

system operations.

0 Undertake a water quality study to

determine the extent of ground water

contamination in the county.Highlighting known hazardous waste

sites will depict areas not only where

ground water contamination presently

exists but where potential problems could

be in the future. In addition, the county



should analyze the effect of the new

water quality testing requirements on the

ability of local purveyors to comply with

the stricter standards.

0 Consider enhancements to the landdevelopment review process to increase

the integration of local planning and

county planning with respect to water

resource protection.

0 The county should also act as a clear

inghouse for information that relates to

potential threats to the ground water

system. While NJDEPE and USEP A

bureaus and divisions each regulate and

monitor point source discharges and

5-15

potentially contaminating activities, such

as registration and testing of underground

storage tanks, there is no single agency

responsible for identifying, tracking, and

monitoring the status of all potential

sources of ground water contamination.

In addition, there is virtually no regu

latory oversight or monitoring of the

effects of non-point source pollution.

Because the county provides an excellent

interface between the municipalities and

the state and federal agencies, it is in an

excellent position to provide broad

coordinating actions to protect the

drinking water supply.




APPENDIX A

NJGS Base Flow Analysis

For their analysis, NJGS used two methods to

estimate the base flow from the long-term records:

the sliding interval method (Pettyjohn and

Henning, 1979) and the Posten (Posten, 1982)

method. These two methods differ in the

analytical approach used to determine baseflow

from streamflow records, and thus they provide

different estimates of stream baseflow given the

same data. NJGS also reported base flow

estimates for three time periods: (1) the period of

record for each station, (2) the period of 1940 to

1989, and (3) the drought period of 1960 to 1966.

For the analysis of stream baseflow conducted forthis report, an average of the Posten and sliding

interval methods for the period of record was used.

The ten streamflow gaging stations were

numbered I to 3, and 6 to 12 (stations numbered 4

and 5 were initially selected, but later found to be

A-1

redundant with station 6). The drainage areas

upstream of these streamflow gaging stations were

determined using the tertiary drainage basin

divides provided by USGS. These ten stations and

a description of their upstream drainage area are

presented and described in Table A-1.

The ten streamflow gaging stations represent

most of Morris County's drainage area (see

Figure 1-3). Only sma]l portions of Mendham

Township, Chester Township, Chester Borough,

and Washington Township are not included. This

is because these areas are drained by streams

whose nearest downstream station (that wasevaluated by NJGS) was so far downstream as to

make the results of he analysis for the entire drain

age area unrepresentative of the small portion

within Morris County.




TABLEA-1

USGS GAGING STATIONS

Map USGS# Station Description

1379500 Passaic River near Chatham. The drainage area of the Passaic River and

its tributaries upstream ofthis station includes most of Chatham Township

and Harding, all ofPassaic, and portions or Morris Township, Morristown,

Mendham Township and Mendham Borough. Additionally, sections of

Union and Somerset Counties are included in this drainage area. The in

county portion of the drainage area is approximately 52 sq.mi., while the

entire drainage area is listed by USGS as 100 sq.mi.

2 1380500 Rockaway River above Boonton Reservoir at Boonton. The drainage area

of the Rockaway River and its tributaries upstream of this station includesportions ofBoonton Town, Montville, Mountain Lakes, Mine Hill, and

Randolph; Rockaway Township and Jefferson Township and Kinnelon;

most ofDenville and Boonton Township; and all ofRockaway Borough,

Dover, Wharton, and Victory Gardens. Additionally, a small portion of

the drainage area extends into Sussex County. The in-county portion of

the drainage area is approximately 112 sq.mi., while the drainage area of

this station is listed by USGS as 116 sq.mi.

3 1381500 Whippany River at Morristown. The drainage area of the Whippany River

and its tributaries upstream of this station includes portions ofMorristown,

Morris Township, Morris Plains, Parsippany, Randolph, Mendham Town

ship and a small comer ofHarding. The entirety of this drainage area isincluded in Morris County. USGS lists the drainage area for this station as

29.4 sq.mi.

6 1388500 Pompton River at Pompton Plains. The drainage area of the Pompton

River and its tributaries (e.g. the Pequannock River) upstream of this

station includes portions of Pequannock, Kinnelon, Rockaway Township,

and Jefferson, and all ofButler and Riverdale. In addition, the drainage

area extends into Passaic and Sussex Counties (via the Ramapo and

Wanaque Rivers and their tributaries). The in-county portion of the

drainage area is approximately 30 sq.mi., while the entire drainage area of

this station is listed by USGS as 355 sq.mi.

Morris County Water Supply Element A-2



TABLEA-1


Map USGS

# Station Description

7 1389500 Passaic River at Little Falls. This station is located in Passaic County, and

is not within the boundaries shown on Figure 1-3. The drainage area of the

Passaic River and its tributaries upstream of this station includes the drain

age area associated with stations 1, 2, 3, and 6 described above (all of these

stations are on the Passaic River or one of its tributaries upstream of

station 7). To avoid overlapping of drainage areas the drainage area for

this station excludes the drainage area of stations 1, 2, 3, and 6. Results

are reported for only the drainage area of the Passaic River and its tributar

ies between stations 1, 2, 3, and 6 and station 7. This drainage area in

cludes all ofLincoln Park, East Hanover, Hanover, Florham Park, andChatham, and portions of Pequannock, Kinnelon, Montville, Boonton

Township, Boonton Town, Mountain Lakes, Parsippany, Morris Plains,

and Madison. In addition, the drainage area includes portions ofEssex,

Passaic, and Union Counties. The in-county drainage area associated with

this station is approximately 92 sq.mi., while the entire "incremental"

drainage area associated with this station is reported by USGS as 161.6

sq.mi. (the 762 sq.mi. drainage area listed for this station minus the 600.4

sq.mi. drainage area listed for stations 1, 2, 3, and 6).

8 01456000 Musconetcong River near Hackettstown. The drainage area of the Musco

netcong River and its tributaries upstream of this station includes all of

Netcong and portions of Jefferson, Mount Arlington, Roxbury, and Mount0 live. Additionally, the drainage area extends into portions of Sussex

County. The in-county drainage area for this station is approximately 28

sq.mi., while the entire drainage area is listed by USGS as 70 sq.mi.

A-3 Morris County Water Supply Element



TABLEA-1


Map USGS# Station Description

9 01457000 Musconetcong River near Bloomsbury. This station is located in Warren

County, and is not within the boundaries shown on Figure 1-3. The drain

age area of the Musconetcong River and its tributaries upstream of this

station includes the drainage area associated with station 8 described above

(also on the Musconetcong River upstream of this station). To avoid over

lapping of drainage areas the drainage area for this station excludes the

drainage area of station 8. Results are reported for only the drainage area

of the Musco netcong River and its tributaries between station 8 and station

9. This drainage area includes portions ofMount Olive, and Washington.

In addition, the drainage area includes portions ofHunterdon and Warren

Counties. The in-county drainage area associated with this station is ap

proximately 15 sq.mi., while the entire "incremental" drainage area associ

ated with this station is reported by USGS as 71 sq.mi. (the 141 sq.mi.

drainage area listed for this station minus the 70 sq.mi. drainage areas

listed for station 8).

10 1396500 South Branch Raritan River near High Bridge. This station is located in

Hunterdon County. The drainage area of the South Branch Raritan River

and its tributaries upstream of this station includes portions of Roxbury,

Mount Olive, Chester Township, and Washington. In addition, the drain

age area includes portions of Hunterdon County. The in-county drainagearea associated with this station is approximately 54 sq.mi., while the

entire drainage area is listed by USGS as 65.3 sq.mi.

11 01398500 North Branch Raritan River near Far Hills. This station is located in

Somerset County. The drainage area of the North Branch Raritan River

and its tributaries upstream of this station includes portions ofRandolph,

Mendham Township, Mendham Borough, and Chester Township. In addi

tion, the drainage area includes portions of Somerset County. The in

county drainage area associated with this station is approximately 22

sq.mi., while the entire drainage area is listed by USGS as 26.2 sq.mi.

12 01399500 Lamington (Black) River near Pottersville. The entire drainage area of the

Lamington River and its tributaries upstream of this station is located in

Morris County and includes portions ofMount Arlington, Mine Hill,

Roxbury, Randolph, Chester Township, Chester Borough, and Washing

ton. The drainage area of this station is listed by USGS as 32.8 sq.mi.

Note: Map# refers to the number of the station presented on Figure 1-3.

Morris County Water Supply Element A-4



APPENDIXB

Purveyor Descriptions

B-1 Morris County Water Supply Element



Arlington Hills Water Company

Municipalities served: Portion of Mount Arlington

Number of connections: 3 total

residential:

commercial:

industrial:

public:

Supply: wells:

reservoirs:

Interconnections: NONE

DESCRIPTION:

0

3

0

0

2

0

Max. diversion rights:

Actual ave. diversion:

Total storage capacity:

Treatment: N/A

9.3 MGM

0.46MGM

0.30 MG

The Arlington Hills Water Company was created to serve a new planned unit development, Seasons Glen.

Once completed the 202 acrePUDwill

consistof

588 residences, 280,000 square feetof

office space,and a 120,000 square foot shopping center. The site is also to be served by its own central sewerage

system. At this time it is not known if there are plans for the water company to interconnect with any

other system.

Boonton Town Water Department

Municipalities served: Boonton Town, portions of Boonton Township and Montville

Number of connections: 2,658 total Max. diversion rights: 91.45 MGMresidential: 2,638

commercial: 6 Actual ave. diversion: 29.23 MGM

industrial: 14

public: 0 Total storage capacity: 1.55 MG

Supply: wells: 5 Treatment: manganese/iron removal, VOC

reservoirs: 1 removal

Interconnections: Two - Denville, Boonton Township Water District #1

DESCRIPTION:

The Boonton Town Water Department is one of the few purveyors in the county that derives it supply

from both ground and surface water sources. All of its sources are located outside of the town. The

reservoir is located in Montville and Kinnelon and its major wellfield is located in Boonton Township.

In addition to directly serving a portion of the township, the Water Department also wholesales about

0.45 MGM to Boonton Township.

Morris County Water Supply Element B-2



Boonton Township Water District #1Municipalities served: Portion ofBoonton Township

Number of connections: 102 total Max. diversion rights: N/A

residential: 98

commercial: 3 Actual ave. diversion: N/Aindustrial: 0

public: 1 Total storage capacity: N/A

Supply: wells: NIA Treatment: N/A

reservoirs: NIA

Interconnections: One- Boonton Town Water Department

DESCRIPTION:

This municipal water department serves only a small section of Boonton Township along Powerville

Road adjacent to the boundary with the Town ofBoonton. The Water District purchases all of its water,

approximately 0.45 MGM, from the Boonton Town Water Department which it distributes directly toeach user since it has no storage facilities.

Butler Water Department

Municipalities served: Butler Borough, portions ofKinnelon

Number of connections:residential:

commercial:

industrial:

public:

2,290 totalN/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Supply: wells:

reservoirs:

0

1

Max. diversion rights: 124.00MGM

Actual ave. diversion: 24.55MGM

Total storage capacity: 2.0MG

Treatment: pH adjustment, iron removal,

disinfection

Interconnections: Six- Newark (1), Kinnelon Borough Water Department (2), Passaic Valley

Water Commission (1), Riverdale (1), and Pompton Lakes (1).

DESCRIPTION:

The Butler Water Department is the only purveyor in Morris County which relies solely on surface water

as supply. The Kakeout Reservoir is located entirely within neighboring Kinnelon Borough. Presently,

the water department has excess capacity which it is interested in selling to other purveyors.




Chatham Borough Water Department

Municipalities served: Chatham Borough

Number of connections:

residential:

commercial:industrial:

public:

2,881 total

2,712

1680

1

Supply: wells:

reservoirs:

3

0




Treatment: N/A

Interconnections: Four- Madison (1), NJ-American Water Company (3)

DESCRIPTION:

50.00MGM

31.70MGM

1.38 MG

The Chatham Borough Water Department has had its own water supply system since 1897. The only

system deficiencies noted by the department are dead-ended mains which need to be looped. The

Chatham Borough system draws from the Central Passaic Buried Valley Aquifer.

Chester Borough Water Department

Municipalities served: Chester Borough


commercial:

industrial:

public:

112 total100

120

0

Supply: wells:

reservoirs:

2

0


DESCRIPTION:


Actual ave. diversion (1989):


Treatment: Hydrochlorination

N/A

1.38 MGM

0.21 MG

The department was created when the borough took over the Chester Water Company, a private purveyor.

The system dates back to 1932. Chester Borough has made several improvements including the

construction of a 200,000 gallon storage tank and the creation of new wells in the Olde Chester Towne

and Shadow Woods developments.




Cliffside Park Water Company

Municipalities served: Portion of Washington Township


residential:


public:

38 total

38

380

0

Supply: wells:

reservoirs:

0

1


DESCRIPTION:




Treatment: N/A

N/A

0.15MGM

N/A

Cliffside Park Water Company, one of the smallest water systems in the county, is located in the extreme

south-western comer of Washington Township. The only source of water for the 38 residences is a

spring-fed underground reservoir. During times of water shortage, residents are not permitted to washcars or water lawns, and at times, wash laundry.

Denville Township Water Department

Municipalities served: Denville, portions ofBoonton Township, Mountain Lakes, Parsippany-Troy

Hills, and Randolph.

Number of connections: 4,953 total Max. diversion rights: 70.00MGM

residential : 4,513

commercial: 415 Actual ave. diversion: 48.98MGM

industrial: 15


Supply: wells: 5 Treatment: Air stripper for VOC removal,

reserv01rs: 0 manganese removal

Interconnections: Boonton Town, Mountain Lakes, Parsippany-Troy Hills, Randolph Township

MUA, Rockaway Borough, proposed-Morris County MUA

DESCRIPTION:

The water supply source for the Denville Water Department's five wells is the glacial moraine which

follows the Rockaway River. Two wells are located in Randolph, one of which has been contaminated

by VOC's. An interconnection with MCMUA is being constructed to insure sufficient water to serve the

southern portion of the township.

B-5Morris County

Water

Supply Element



Dover Water Department

Municipalit ies served: Dover, Victory Gardens, portions of Randolph, Rockaway Township, and

Wharton.


residential:commercial:

industrial:

public:

6,068 total

5,245693

69

61

Supply: wells:

reservoirs:

4

0


Actual ave. diversion: 85.48 MGM

Total storage capacity: 4.25 MG

Treatment: Air stripper to remove VOC's

Interconnections: Five- Rockaway Borough (1), Wharton (2), Randolph (2)

DESCRIPTION:

Water distributed by the Dove r Water Commission is currently supplied by three wells all located in

Water Works Park adjacent to the Rockaway River. A fourth well off Hooey Street is presently not in

use because ofVOC contamination. An air stripper is being installed to remove the contamination. The

total number of connections has increased approximately 12% from 5,429 in 1981.

East Hanover Water Department

Municipalities served: East Hanover


commercial:

industrial:

public:

2,900 total2,626

256

0

18

Supply: wells:

reservoirs:

3

0




Treatment: Air stripper for removal ofVOC's.

Interconnections: Four- NJ-American Water Company (1), SMCMUA (1) , Florham Park (2)

DESCRIPTION:

Because of extensive ground water contamination, almost all of the East Hanover is served by the

township's Water Department. Contamination was also found in one municipal well. The Water

Department is presently seeking outside sources ofwater to supplement its own supply since the present

system is not able to meet peak demands and new wells can not be developed within the township.




Elizabethtown Water Company

Municipalities served: Small portion of Chester Township


residential:


public:

19 total

Supply: wells:

reservorrs:

Interconnections: N/A

DESCRIPTION:

19

00

0

N/A

N/A




Treatment: N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

The Elizabethtown Water Company, one of the largest water purveyors in the state, only serves a very

small portion of Morris County. The Water Company had taken over the Peapack-Gladstone water

system which had served homes located in the southern portion ofChester Township. All of the sourcesofwater and storage facilities are located outside of the county. There are no plans for extending service

further into Morris County.

Fayson Lakes Water Company

Municipalities served: Portion ofKinnelon


commercial:

industrial:

public:

798 total

Supply: wells:

reservoirs:


DESCRIPTION:

794

2

0

2

6

0




Treatment: Iron and manganese removal

The Payson Lakes Water Company, a private water company, serves the primarily residential areassurrounding Payson Lakes. The system is not interconnected with any other water system. According

to the water company, there are difficulties in meeting the summer peak demands.

B-7Morris County Water Supply Element



Florham Park Water Department

Municipalities served: Florham Park


residential:

commercial:

industrial:

public:

3,055 total

2,193

142

0

0




54.25 MGM

34.15 MGM

1.25 MG

Supply: wells:

reservoirs:

3

0

Treatment: Gas chlorination, sodium

hexametaphosphate

Interconnections: Seven- NJ-American (1), Madison (3), East Hanover (2), SMCMUA (1)

DESCRIPTION:

The Florham Park Water Department only supplies water with the Borough of Florham Park. The

interconnections with other purveyors are for emergency use only. According to the Water Department,

the sources of supply are adequate to meet present and future (20 10) demands.

Hackettstown Municipal Utilities Authority

Municipalities served: Portion ofWashington Township and Mount Olive

Number of connections (Morris): 762 totalresidential: 655

commercial: 95

industrial: 12

public: 0

Supply: wells (Morris):

reservoirs (Morris):


DESCRIPTION:

1

3




Treatment: N/A

75 .00MGM

65 .50 MGM

2.40 MG

The MUA has supply sources both in Morris and Warren Counties . The sources located in Morris County

consist of one well in Washington Township and three reservoirs located along Mine Brook which

extends from Washington Township into Mount Olive. Presently, the Hackettstown MUA serves the

portion ofWashington Township which is adjacent to Hackettstown. The MUA is interested in supplying

service to additional users within Washington Township provided that all municipal and private

agreements are satisfied.




' Jefferson Township Department of Municipal Utilities

Municipalities served: Jefferson Township


residential:


public:

2,565 total

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Supply: wells:

reservOirs:

110


DESCRIPTION:




Treatment: N/A

32.00MGM

17.60 MGM

0.81 MG

The township acquired several small water systems through donation, court order, and purchase from the

early 1970's through the early 1980's. Most of these systems only served a few homes, had only one well

as their source ofwater and had substandard infrastructure. The Depar tment ofMunicipal Utilities is now

the major purveyor within Jefferson. In 1991, the township developed a water supply master plan which

notes the deficiencies of the existing systems and contains plans for upgrades and interconnections

between the various systems.

Kinnelon Water Department

Municipalities served: Portion of Kinnelon


commercial:

industrial:

public:

257 total

Supply: wells:

reservOirs:

250

4

0

3

0

0

Interconnections: Two - Butler Water Department

DESCRIPTION:

Max. diversion rights: N/A

Actual ave. diversion: N/A

Total storage capacity: O.SOMG

Treatment: N/A

The Kinnelon Borough Water Department obtains all of its supply from the Butler Water Department.In 1990, the Department purchased an average of 1.53 MGM from Butler. The service area for the Water

Department consists of small primarily residential areas adjacent to Butler Borough.




Lake Shore Water Company

Municipalities served: Portion ofHarding


residential:

commercial:

industrial:

public:

95 total

Supply: wells:

reservoirs:


DESCRIPTION:

95

0

0

0

3

0




Treatment: N/A

N/A

0.04MGM

0.04MG

The Lake Shore Water Company serves the residential community around Mount Kemble Lake in

Harding. It is not interconnected with any other water system.

Lake Stockholm Water Company

Municipalities served: Small portion of Jefferson Township


commercial:

industrial:

public:

59 total

Supply: wells:

reserv01rs:


DESCRIPTION:

59

0

0

0

1

0




Treatment: N/A

N/A

N/A

0.025 MG

The Lake Stockholm Water Company, a private water system, serves a lake community primarily located

in Sussex County a portion ofwhich extends into Jefferson Township. Only the company's water storage

tank is located within the Morris County section of its franchise.




Lake Valhalla Water Company

Municipalities served: Small portion ofMontvil le


residential:


public :

35 total

Supply: wells:

reservoirs:

35

00

0

1

0

Interconnections: One - Montville MUA

DESCRIPTION:


Actual ave. diversion (1989):


Treatment: None

NIA

0.30MGM

N/A

The Lake Valhalla Water Company's franchise was taken over by the Montville MUA in 1992. Relying

on one well, the water company could not meet the daily demands on its system .

Lincoln Park Water Department

Municipalities served: Lincoln Park

Number of connections: 3,480 total Max. diversion rights: N/Aresidential: 3,350

commercial: 85 Actual ave. diversion: N/A

industrial: 40


Supply: wells: 0 Treatment: N/A

reservoirs: 0

Interconnections: Three- Passaic Valley Water Commission (1), Pequannock (2)

DESCRIPTION:

The Lincoln Park Water Department no longer has any of its own sources of supply; the waterdepartment purchases its supply from the Passaic Valley Water Commission and the Pequannock

Township Water Department. In 1990, the average monthly consumption was 37.87 MGM.




Madison Water Department

Municipalities served: Madison, small portion of Florham Park

Number of connections: 4,912 total Max. diversion rights: 108.50 MGM

residential: 4,780


industrial: 0


Supply: wells: 5 Treatment: Chlorine

reservoirs: 0

Interconnections: Eight- SMCMUA (1), Florham Park (3), NJ-American (3), Chatham Borough

(1)

DESCRIPTION:

All of Madison is served by the Water Department. According to the Department, the wells are notpresently used to capacity and are believed to be adequate to meet future (2010) demands. The wells of

Madison Water Department draw from the Central Passaic Buried Valley Aquifer which is the water

source for the major purveyors serving the southeastern portion of the county.

Mendham Borough Water Department(Now owned and operated by NJ-American Water Co.)

Municipalities served: Mendham Borough, portions ofMendham Township

Number of connections: 1,978 total Max. diversion rights :

residential: 1,886

commercial: 87 Actual ave. diversion:

industrial: 0

public: 5 Total storage capacity:


reservoirs: 0

Interconnections: Four- MCMUA (1), NJ-American (1), SMCMUA (2)

DESCRIPTION:

7.40 MGM

7.40MGM

1.2MG

In 1992, Mendham Borough sold its water franchise to the New Jersey-American Water Company and

no longer operates its own water system. The Mendham Borough system still utilizes the same water

sources. In addition, New-Jersey American Water Company has completed an interconnection with its

system. Because of the inability of the system to meet peak demand, additional water is purchased from

MCMUA. In 1990, MCMUA sold approximately 12.12 MGM to the borough.




Mine Hill Water Department

Municipalities served: Mine Hill

Number of connections: N/A total Max. diversion rights: N/A

residential: N/A

commercial: N/A Actual ave. diversion: N/A

industrial: N/A

public: N/A Total storage capacity: OMG

Supply: wells: 0 Treatment: None

reservoirs: 0

Interconnections: Two- MCMUA (1), Roxbury Water Company (1)

DESCRIPTION:

The Mine Hill Water Department has no supply sources of its own. The MCMUA supplies

approximately 4.38 MGM and, according to the Roxbury Water Company, they supply approximately

1.14 MGM to the township Water Department.

Montville Municipal Utilities Authority

Municipalities served: Montville


commercial:

industrial:

public:

3,270 total2,950

320

0

0

Supply: wells:

reservoirs:

3

0




Treatment: None

Interconnections: NONE, except to the Jersey City Pump Station .

DESCRIPTION:

86.60MGM

43.92MGM

4.5MG

The Montville MUA has expanded its system to serve almost all the developed areas of the township.The MUA has no interconnections with any other local systems; however, a possible connection with the

Town ofBoonton's system was proposed.





Municipalities served: Mine Hill, Randolph, Mendham Borough, SMCMUA

Number of connections: N/A total Max. diversion rights: 142.80 MGM

residential: NIA

commercial: NIA Actual ave. diversion: 66.87MGM

industrial: NIA

public: N/A Total storage capacity: 7.46 MG


reservoirs: 0

Interconnections: Six- SMCMUA (2), NJ-American (1), Mine Hill (1), Roxbury (1), Randolph

(1)

DESCRIPTION:

MCMUA only wholesales water to other municipal utility authorities and water departments. MCMUA

presently obtains its water from the Alamatong Wellfield located in the southwestern corner ofRandolph

Township and from the Flanders Valley Wellfield in Mount Olive. In order to obtain a reliable source

of surface water, MCMUA has entered into a contract with Jersey City to divert up to 7.5 MGD from the

Boonton Reservoir. The agreement is contingent upon NJDEPE approval.

Mountain Lakes Water Department

Municipalities served: Mountain Lakes, Portion ofBoonton Town, Boonton Township, Denville,

Parsippany-Troy Hills


residential: 1,294


industrial: 0

public: 2 Total storage capacity: l.SOMG

Supply: wells: 4 Treatment: Chlorination

reservoirs: 0

Interconnections: Three - Denville ( 1 , Parsippany-Troy Hills (2)

DESCRIPTION:

The Mountain Lakes Water Department serves all ofMountain Lakes as well as small portions of the

neighboring municipalities of Denville and Parsippany. The borough has one major production well

located in the southern portion of the municipality; the remaining wells are used for emergency or back

up purposes only. Two wells are located outside ofthe borough within the "Valley" area ofDenville.




Mountain Shores Water System

Municipalities served: Portion of Jefferson Township

Number of connections: 22 total

Supply:

residential: 22

commercial: 0industrial: 0

public: 0

wells:

reservOirs:

2

0


DESCRIPTION:




Treatment: N/A

N/A

N/A

0.012 MG

The Mountain Shores Water System is a private water company serving a small residential area near

Nolans Point in the southern portion of Jefferson. It is not interconnected with any other water system.

Mount Arlington Service Company

Municipalities served: Portion ofMount Arlington



industrial:

public:

264 total

Supply: wells:

reservoirs:


DESCRIPTION:

2640

0

1

2

0

Max. diversion rights: N/A

Actual ave. diversion (1991): 1.61 MGM


Treatment: Gas chlorination

The Mount Arlington Service Company provides water to single family homes, an apartment complex

and a school within the borough. The water company has no interconnections with any other system.

B-15Morris County

WaterSupply Element



Mount Arlington Water Company

Municipalit ies served: Portion ofMount Arlington


residential:


public:

49 total

Supply: wells:

reservOirs:


DESCRIPTION:

. N/A

NIANIA

NIA

2

0




Treatment: N/A

N/A

0.34MGM

NIA

The small private water company serves a small residential area adjacent to Lake Hopatcong in the

central portion Mount Arlington. It is not interconnected with any other system.

Mount Olive Township Water and Sewer Department

Municipalities served: Portion ofMount Olive Township


commercial:

industrial:

public:

4,084 total3,990

94

0

0

Supply: wells:

reservous:

20

0


DESCRIPTION:




Treatment: Gas chlorination, iron sequestration,

pH adjustment, calcite filters

The township water department operates eight separate water systems located through the township.Most of these systems were originally operated by private water companies or were created to serve a

residential development. Most of he water systems are not interconnected. The township has undertaken

a program of upgrading the substandard elements of its overall water system.




Mount Olive Villages

Municipalities served: Portion ofMount Olive


residential:


public:

1,336 total

1,333

00

3




13.00MGM

7.39MGM

0.50MG

Supply: wells:

reservoirs:

3

0

Treatment: Lime addition, air stripper for C02


DESCRIPTION:

The Mount Olive Villages service area is located in the south western portion ofMount Olive generally

bounded by the Washington Township border, Shop Lane, Mt. Olive Road, and encompassing a port ion

of Route 46. It is not interconnected with any other system. According to the water company, itpresently has sufficient supply but will have to develop new sources in order to accommodate additional

growth.

Netcong Water Department

Municipalities served: Netcong, small portion ofMount Olive


commercial:

industrial:

public:

Supply: wells:

1,284 total1,203

4

77

0

4reservoirs: 0

Interconnections: One- Stanhope (Sussex Co.)

DESCRIPTION:




Treatment: Gas chlorination

17.80MGM

12.23 MGM

1.00 MG

The Netcong Water Department serves a small portion of Mount Olive and is the only purveyor servingthe borough. Its wellfield is located outside ofNetcong in the neighboring municipalities ofMt. Olive

and Roxbury. According to the water department, its sources are adequate to meet current demands,

however, a back-up reservoir may be needed in the future.

B-17Morris County Water Supply Element



New Jersey-American Water Company

Municipalit ies served: Portions of Chatham Township, Long Hill Township, Florham Park, Harding,

Mendham Borough, and Mendham Township.

Number of connections: 7,313 total Max. diversion rights: N/A

residential: 6,996commercial: 302 Actual ave. diversion: N/A

industrial: 15

public: 0 Total storage capacity: 3.62MG

in Morris County

Supply wells: 4

(Morris Co.) reservoirs: 0 Treatment: Chlorination

Interconnections: Six- East Hanover, Florham Park, Madison, MCMUA, Chatham Borough, and

SMCMUA.

DESCRIPTION:

The New Jersey-American Water Company, the largest private purveyor in the state, serves six

municipalities in the southeastern portion of he county. The water company has completed construction

of a pipeline as part of its WaterSource project which would bring in water from the Passaic Valley Water

Commission into southeastern Morris County. SMCMUA is under contract to purchase a portion of this

water.

New Jersey Vasa Homes

Municipalities served: Portion of Mount Olive


commercial:

industrial:

public:

74 total

Supply: wells:

reservoirs:


DESCRIPTION:

74

0

0

0

3

0

Max. diversion rights:Actual ave. diversion:


Treatment: None

N/A0.34MGM

0.0005 MG

New Jersey Vasa Homes serves a small private community in the western portion of Mount Olive. It isnot interconnected with any other water system. According to the water company, its sources are

adequate to meet current and future needs.




Parsippany Water Department

Municipalities served: Parsippany and small sections of Denville and Mountain Lakes


residential : NIA

commercial: N/A Actual ave. diversion: 204.18MGM

industrial: N/A

public: NIA Total storage capacity: 10.50 MG

Supply: wells: 20 Treatment: Chlorination

reservoirs: 0

Interconnections: Four- Denville (1), Mountain Lakes (2), SMCMUA (1)

DESCRIPTION:

The Parsippany Water Department is the largest municipal water department and serves the second

largest population within Morris County. The water department service area consists of the entire

township including the Greystone State Psychiatric Hospital. In addition to its own well supplies, thetownship purchases water from SMCMUA. The Water Department believes that its sources are adequate

to meet current and short-range future demands.

Pequannock Water Department

Municipalities served: Pequannock, small portion ofLincoln Park

Numberof

connections:4,286 total

Max. diversion rights:106.00MGM

residential: 4,078


industrial: 8



reservoirs: 0

Interconnections: Seven- Newark (4), Lincoln Park (2), Riverdale (1)

DESCRIPTION:

The Pequannock Water Department is the only purveyor in the county which utilizes water on an asneeded basis from the City ofNewark's supply system. It has an agreement to purchase up to 6.0 mgd

from Newark to supplement its supply. The water department also sells an average of0.28 MGD ofwater

to the Lincoln Park Water Department. Sampling in one of the township's wells has revealed

concentrations of TCA. The Department believes that its supplies are not adequate to meet future

demands.




Plausha Park Water Company

Municipalities served: Portion ofMontville


residential:


public:

57 total

Supply: wells :

reservoirs:


DESCRIPTION:

57

0

0

0

1

0

Max diversion rights:



Treatment: None

N/A

0.54MGM

0.07MG

The private water company serves a residential area in the Towaco section of Montville Township.

Although its source of water consists ofonly one well, the company believes that it has sufficient supply

to meet current and future demands . However, the company states that an interconnection with another

system would be desirable for additional protection.

Randolph Water Department

Municipalities served: Major portion ofRandolph, small portions ofMendham Township, Mine

Hill, and Chester Township

Number of connections: 3,786 total Max. diversion rights: N/A

residential: 3,697

commercial: 81 Actual ave. diversion: N/A

industrial: 0



reservoirs: 0

Interconnections : Six- Dover (2), Denville (1), Parsippany (1), SMCMUA (1), MCMUA (1)

DESCRIPTION:The Randolph Water Department does not have any supply sources of its own. Instead, Randolph

purchases its water, an average of 36.03 MGM, from MCMUA. The water department serves most of

the township south ofRoute 10, in addition to small sections of several neighboring municipalities.




RiverdaleWater Department

Municipalities served: Riverdale


residential:


public:

750 total

648

97

5

0

Supply: wells:

reservoirs:

2

0


Actual ave.

diversion:


Treatment: N/A

Interconnections: Two- Pequannock (1), Pompton Lakes (I )

DESCRIPTION:

12.40MGM

6.58 MGM

NIA

The Water Department serves the eastern, developed portion ofRiverdale. The department believes that

its supplies are adequate to meet current and future demands .

Rockaway Borough Water Department

Municipalities served: Rockaway Borough, portions ofRockaway Township and Denville


commercial:

industrial:

public:

2,800 totalN/A

NIA

NIA

N/A

Supply: wells:

reservoirs:

3

0




Treatment: air stripper for VOC removal

Interconnections: Three - Dover (I ), Denville (1), Rockaway Township (1)

DESCRIPTION:

In addition to supplying water directly to consumers within its service area, the water department sellsapproximately 6 MGM to the Rockaway Township. The borough obtains its water supply from three

wells located offofUnion Ave. In 1980, VOC contamination was discovered in the Water Department's

wells. Activated charcoal filters and air strippers were installed in 1981. The wellfield was placed on the

Superfund list in 1983. Federal studies completed in 1991 recommended the current treatment as the

preferred remedy.

B-21 Morris CountyWater Supply Element



Rockaway Township Water Department

Municipalities served: Major portion of Rockaway Township


residential:


public:

3,251 total

3,192

3520

4




62.00MGM

25.16MGM

3.75 MG

Supply: wells:

reservoirs:

40

Treatment: air strippers for VOC removal

Interconnections: One - Rockaway Borough

DESCRIPTION:

The Water Department primarily serves the White Meadow Lake a rea of the township. The township

draws water from wells situated in the Valley Fill Aquifer which is a Sole Source Aquifer. All wells are

located between Green Pond Road and the Denville border; the original wellfield is about 1/2 mile north

of Route 80 and the newest well is near Meridan Road on Hewlett Packard's property. In 1979, VOC

contamination was found in the Department's wellfield. An air stripper and carbon filtration system were

installed the following year. The wellfield was placed on the Superfund list in 1983.

Roxbury Water Company

Municipalities served: Portion of Roxbury



industrial:

public:

2,930 total

N/ANIAN/A

N/A

Supply: wells:

reservoirs:

7

0


DESCRIPTION:




Treatment: NONE

40.00MGM

18.86 MGM

2.50MG

The private wate r company serves an area of Roxbury south of the High Bridge Branch Railroad and

Route 10. It is the major purveyor within the township in terms of the total number of connections.Roxbury Water Company's wells are scattered throughout its service area. The water company also sells

approximately 1.14 MGM to the Mine Hill Water Department.




Roxbury Township Water Department

Municipalities served: Portion of Roxbury, Mount Arlington

Number of connections (1988): I,830 total

Supply:

residential: I, 728

commercial: I02industrial: 0

public: N/A

wells:

reservoirs:

I2

0

Interconnections: One-MCMUA

DESCRIPTION:


Actual ave. diversion: I4.25 MGM


Treatment: N/A

The municipal water department serves Roxbury Township north of the High Bridge Branch Railroad

and Route I0. All of its wells and most of its service area are located in the Shore Hills section and the

Skyview Estates and Lookout Estates residential subdivisions. Service is currently being extended to theKenvil area because of ground water contamination. In order to obtain sufficient water to serve Kenvil

as well as to meet future demands, an interconnection to MCMUA was made to supplement the existing

sources.

Southeast Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority

Municipalities served: Morristown, Morris Plains, Hanover, Morris Township, portions of

Mendham Township, Chatham Township, Harding, and Florham Park.

Number of connections: 16,5 84 total Max. diversion rights : 360.00MGM

residential: NIA

commercial: NIA Actual ave. diversion: 259.79MGM

industrial: NIA

public: NIA Total storage capacity: 16.17MG

Supply: wells: 13 Treatment: Manganese removal, filtration,

reservoirs: 1 chlorine, lime, polymer additives.

Interconnections: Thirteen- Madison (1), MCMUA (2), NJ-American (5), Parsippany (2),

Randolph (I), East Hanover (1), and Florham Park (I).

DESCRIPTION: SMCMUA is the largest purveyor in the county in terms of he number of connections.

The MUA obtains most of its water from wells which draw from the Central Passaic Buried Valley

Aquifer. In addition, an average of I4.35 MGM of water is purchased from MCMUA. SMCMUA has

documented drawdown in its wells. In order to alleviate the demand on its wells, the MUA has entered

into an agreement to purchase up to 6 MGD from the NJ American Water Company through its

WaterSource project.




Washington Township Municipal Utilities Authority

Municipalities served: Portions ofWashington Township

Number of connections (1992): 1,719 total Max. diversion rights: 23.28 MGM

residential: 1,674


industrial: 0


Supply: wells:

reservoirs:

110

Treatment: Chlorination, pH adjustment,

caustic soda.


DESCRIPTION:

The Washington Township MU A provides water to three service areas within the municipality:

Schooleys Mountain, Wooded Valley, and the Hagar systems. Eleven wells area located through these

systems which are interconnected. The MUA is in the process of extending service to the area of

Washington and Chester Townships contaminated by the Combe Fill South landfill and Cleveland

Industrial Park. In order to provide sufficient water, the MUA is exploring for new well sites.

West Jersey Water Service, Inc.

Municipali ties served: Portion of Mount Olive



industrial :

public:

214 total

Supply: wells:

reservoirs:


DESCRIPTION:

2140

0

0

4

0




Treatment: Chlorination

N/A

1.85 MGM

0.05 MG

The service area of this small water company is located just west of Budd Lake. The system is at

maximum capacity and does not anticipate any additional hook-ups. Many of its lines are undersized andthe system requires substantial upgrades. In 1988, the West Jersey Water Service offered to sell its

system to Mount Olive Township which rejected the purchase because of the system deficiencies.




Wharton Water Department

Municipalit ies served: Wharton


residential:


public:

1,790 total

1,729

458

8

Supply: wells:

reservOirs:

3

0

Interconnections: Two- Dover

DESCRIPTION:



Total storage capacity: N/A

Treatment: Air stripper for removal ofVOC's

The Department serves only the Borough of Wharton. VOC contamination was discovered in the two

wells located between the Rockaway River, West Central A venue and the Central Railroad in the northern

portion of the borough. These wells were put temporarily out of service until air strippers are installedto remove the contamination. Presently, the Water Department is only using one well which is located

in the southern section of the borough also adjacent to the river. There is concern that this well is also

susceptible to contamination because of its shallow depth.

Notes:

1. All information provided is as of 1990 unless otherwise indicated.

2. MGM = million gallons per month

3. MGD = million gallons per day

4. VOC =volatile organic compounds

5. MUA =municipal utilities authority




APPENDIXC

Bedrock Geology Map

C-1 Morris County Water Supply Element



Bedrock Geology

LegendEarly Jurassic/LateTriassic

- Boonton Formation -- OJ .

[]]IIJ] Hook Mountain Basalt

-0.

-. Towaco Formation "0-/ --------Quartz Pebble Conglomerate-._

~ " ' asalt Clast Conglome rate a_

Quartzite Clast Conglomerate

IIII Limestone Clast C o n g ~ m e r a t e !Passaic Quartzite Conglomerate/

I TRc J Quartzite Clast Conglomerate

Devonian Period

- Bellvale Sandstone

- Cornwall Shale

- Undifferent iated Kanouse Sandstone,Esopus Format ion, and Connelly

Conglomerate

Si lurian Per od

I pbv I Undifferent iated Berkshire Valley

Formation and Poxono Island Format ion

0 Longwood Shale

Green Pond Con_g lomerate

Ordovician Period

- Martinsburg Formation

- Bushkill Member of Martinsburg Formation

- Jutland Klippe Units

- Beekmantown Group, Epler Formation

- Beekmantown Group, Rickenbach Format ion

- Allentown Dolomite

Cambrian Period

[! 0 Leithsville Format on

00 Hardyston Quartzite

N 0 R T H

0 2 3

0 2 3 4 5

I inch to 8,300 feet

6

Precambrian Period

-

Hornblende Granite "'-. _,.,- Hornblende Syenite ~ ' @ - Biotite Granite ~ ~ - a - Microperthite Ataski e I

-

Pyroxene Gran1te -.... :c n ~ - o r-

-

Pyroxene Syenite §"r :;:·oro

- Pyroxene Alaskite _. 1 " 0 ~

- Potassic Feldspar Gneiss

Microcline Gneiss

Biotite-Quartz-Feldspar Gneiss !. 3

Hornblende-Quartz -Feldspar Gne1ss 3

- C l i n o p y r o x e n e Q u a r t z d s p a r Gneiss

- Pyroxene Gneiss g- Frank l n M arble -- - ;It"

Quartz-O ligoclase Gneiss -- -~ i i t G " l b i t e O i i g o c l a s e Granite ~ · 1 1

Biotite-Quartz -O igoclase

Hyperstene-Quartz-Piagioclase Gneiss \

~ D i o r i t e ::o

Amphibolite Q

""mg I Monazite Gneiss :;c·2,

I Yhp I Hornblende-Ciin?pyroxene-Plagioclase Gne1ss . <9:!§.

I Ybp I Biotite -Plagioclase Gneiss : : : : ~ 1 Yma I Microantiperthite Alaskite /

4 5 Miles

7 Kilometers

----- Faults- Dashed where concealed; queried w h ~ r e uncerta in

; ; 4 ; ; Inclined thrust ault- Sawteeth on upper pate

• J

t

n: --..v --..

FOLDS

Antiform -Showing cres line and direction of plunge

Synform - Showing roughl ine and direction of plunge

Overturned antiform Showing trace of axialsurface, d rect ion of dip of imbs, and plunge

Overturned synform Showing trace of axiasurface, direction of dip of mbs, and plunge

Anticline-Showing crestline anddirection of plunge

SOURCE:N]GS, 1992. See complete listing for references.

Map Prepared By:


1994 Water Supply Master P

County of Morris, New Jerse

Morris County Planning Boar

Appendix C: Bedrock Geology



APPENDIXD

Sources Consulted

D-1 Morris County Water Supply Element



: ,. .

Introduction

Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders. Report upon the Long Range Water Requirements for

Morris County. Prepared by Elson T. Killam Assoc. September 1958.

Morris County Planning Board. Future Water Supply Requirements for Morris County. 1956.

Morris County Planning Board. 1971 Water Supply Master Plan. Prepared by Elson T. Killam

Assoc. 1971.

Morris County Planning Board. 1982 Water Supply Master Plan Element. Prepared by Elson T.Killam Assoc. Adopted October 1982.

Chapter One

Canace, Robert, W.R. Hutchinson, W.R. Saunders, and K.G. Andres. Results ofthe 1980-1981

Drought Emergency Ground Water Investigation in Morris and Passaic Counties. New Jersey.

NJGS Open File Report No. 83-3, 1983.

Gill, Harold E. and John Vecchioli. Availability of Ground Water in Morris County. USGS Special

Report No. 25, 1965.

Hoffman, Jeffrey L. Plan of Study for the Central Passiac River Basin Hydrogeologic Investigation.

NJGS Open File Report 88-4, 1989a.

Hoffman, Jeffrey L. Simulated Drawdown. 1972-1995. in the Pleistocene Buried-Valley Aquifer inSouthwestern Essex and Southeastern Morris Counties. New Jersey. NJGS Open File Report 89-1,

1989b.

Morris County Water Supply Element D-2



Lewis, J. Volney and Henry Kummel. Geologic Map ofNew Jersey. NJGS Atlas Sheet #40. 1910-

1912. Revised by Henry B. Kummel, 1931, and Meredith F. Johnson, 1950.

Markewicz, Frank, R. Dalton and R. Canace. Stratigraphy, Engineering and Geohydrologic

Characteristrics of the Lower Paleozoic Carbonate Formations ofNorthern New Jersey. Presented

at the Design and Construction of Foundations on the Carbonate Formations ofNew Jersey and

Pennsylvania Conference. March 1981.

McAuley, Stephen D., RobertS. Nicholson, Julia L. Barringer (USGS) and George J. Blyskun

(NJGS). Plan to Evaluate the Hydrogeology of the Valley-Fill and Carbonate-Rock Aquifers

near Long Valley in the New Jersey Highlands. NJGS Open File Report 92-3, 1992.

Meisler, Harold. Computer Simulation Model ofthe Pleistocene Valley-Fill Aquifer in Southwestern

Essex and Southeastern Morris Counties. New Jersey. USGS, 1976.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy. New Jersey Statewide Water

Supply Master Plan Revision. Task Reports1-6

prepared by CH2M Hill, Metcalf and Eddy, andNew Jersey First, 1992.

Schaefer, F.L., P.T. Harte, J.A. Smith and B.A. Kurtz. Hydrologic Conditions ofthe Upper

Rockaway River Basin. New Jersey; 1984-1986. USGS Water Resources Investigation Reports

91-4169, (Prepared in cooperation with NJDEP), 1991.

Stanford, Scott D., Ronald W. Witte and David P. Harper. Hydrogeologic Character and Thickness

ofGlacial Sediment ofNew Jersey. NJGS, 1990.

Chapter Two

Boonton Township. Reexamination Report. Prepared by Robert Catlin and Associates. Adopted

November 7, 1988.

Chatham Township. Chatham Township Wastewater Management Plan. Prepared by Metcalf and

Eddy. Dated March 27, 1991.

D-3Morris

CountyWater

Supply Element



C h ~ ~ t e : r ~ P i i s > u g } J . . Borough ofChester 1986 Master Plan. Prepared by E. Eugene 0ross Associates.

Y Q R ~ d S e p t e m b e r 11, 1986.

C h e s t ~ . r Township. A Reexamination and Comprehensive Revision of the Chester Township Master

P ~ a n . ' : P r e p a r e d by Kinzler and Ritter/Land Planning. A9opted September 13, 1988 .;

Hanover Township. Land Use Element of the Master Plan. Prepared by Robert Catlin and

A : ~ s ~ ~ ~ t ~ s , November 1980.

Harding Township. Master Plan. Township ofHarding. Prepared by Townplan Associates. Adopted

December 17, 1984.

Jefferson Township. Township of Jefferson. 1991 Master Plan Update. Prepared by Suburban

Consulting Engineers, Inc. Adopted October 8, 1991.

Jefferson Township. Jefferson Township Water Supply Master Plan. Prepared by Elam & Popoff.

Dated December 1991.

Mendham Borough. 1988 Mendham Borough Master Plan. April 1988. Prepared by Malcolm Kasler

and Associates, P.A. Adopted November 14, 1988.

Mine Hill Township. Master Plan. Township ofMine Hill. Prepared by John Cilo, Jr. Associates.

Adopted August 11, 1988.

Mount Arlington Borough. 1977 Master Plan Revision. Borough of Mount Arlington. Dated October

26, 1977.

Mount Arlington Borough. Master Plan Reexamination Report. Dated December 1983.

Mount Olive Township. Township ofMount Olive Master Plan. Prepared by Queale and Lynch, Inc.

Adopted August 21, 1986.

MotiiltOlive Township. Mount Olive Township Natural Resources Inventory. Prepared by Dresdner,

Robin & Assoc. 1988.

Parsippany-Troy Hills Township Water Department. Parsippany-Troy Hills Water Conservation

Plan. March 1988.

Parsippany-Troy Hills Township. Parsippany-Troy Hills Planning Report for Department ofWater

Supply and Distribution. Prepared by Elam & Popoff. Dated May 1990.

Pequannock Township. Township of Pequannock. Master Plan Reexamination. Pequannock

Township Planning Board, March 1990. Adopted June 4, 1990.

Morris County Water Supply Element D-4



Randolph T o w n s h i p o l . I -Master Plan. Township ofRandolph. Morris Countv. New : ~ e Prepared by Moskowitz, Heyer & Gruel, P.A. & Madden/Kummer, Inc. Circulation PHm E ' l e m ~prepared by McDonough & Rea Associates. Adopted July 20, 1992.

Borough ofRiverdaJe. Master Plan Revision. Borough ofRiverdale. December 1985. PreparedJJ)i

Michael F. Kauker Associates. Adopted February 18, 1986.. .. ' (

Rockaway Township. Rockaway Township Master Plan Summary Report. 1992. Adopted J tily 13,

1992.

Roxbury Township. Master Plan. Comprehensive Revision. 1990. Prepared by Madden/Kuminer,

Inc. Adopted August 1, 1990.

Southeast Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority. Southeast Morris County Municipal Utilities

Authoritv Water System Master Plan. Prepared by Killam Assoc. Dated March 1991.

Victory Gardens Borough. Borough ofVictorv Gardens. Master Plan. Prepared by P. DavidZimmerman. December 1980.

Washington Township. Master Plan and Master Plan Reexamination. Township ofWashington.

Prepared by P. David Zimmerman. Adopted December 10, 1988.

Chapter 4 .,,

Documents

Water Supply Element 1994